s 


CF a 


Oye! 
ss Me : 


Sy 


ee 


ES 


pac 





F PRIAY 

~ JAN (vat aie of 
“B & 
{O GICAL a> 






Division = 4 6 - 










— 


ee, ee 
o-8: a 
aa 
= — 


— 





































& 
| | m “a 
SUN Ras en et 
mn ‘ a / 
4 ta Py: 
‘a 
al 
} 
: : ! 5 
7 
t i 
1 ‘ , te 
‘oe ny : t Py ' 
; At: Lett ioe 
wi ‘ 1 
Cit SRE tm tii |) > 
we Wihtzeees us) ( hen 
fa af) es ; a oie v4 
his at 
A Uh 
iP yay 
me } PE ey ¥ Mt 
‘e ! y. 
4) er b } 
| aviv? if . se) 
J ; ‘ i aa f 
: ‘ ; a, ‘ bail \ ‘ oa ee d ) ‘al : { 
i 5 t | Oy Pere Serene nae, 7 : % 
: ) ; A w #; cat A) [ by teri) ei, . an 
fe ae) Ha ee ia dae ‘dF 
By ae LE oj ea iar ie i pif 
tx " } - 5 d oUF “tet . ‘ty oti 
1 Be : q ait ace! 
rf 5 tit 


het 


At adee 


EPISCOPAL METHODISM 


AND SLAVERY 
With Sidelights on pane IB, 


Learn 


Mee? 


CHARLES BAUMER ‘SWAN EY 





Professor of History in Upper Iowa University 


ERED Sart one eee 





Sr ne er A RY RET LE ERY AR ELE OE AT I OR FEET RE 





BOSTON 
RICHARD G. BADGER, PUBLISHER 


THE GORHAM PRESS 


} 


ORY 
¢ A 


ae } ae | 
Li 
} Lari 4 


b 
| 


ian 





il N49 wet eyo Wi a? 


The union of the various branches of Methodism has been 
the goal towards which many earnest leaders have been 
working during the past half century. Too often, however, 
they have assumed that the faults of the past were to be laid 
at the door of some other group than that which they 
represent. No clear understanding of the problem of union 
can be obtained without a thorough knowledge of the relation 
of Methodism to slavery prior to 1865. This correct knowl- 
edge is not to be sought in the prejudices of either section. 


In this volume, the author has sought to present the 
material on ‘Episcopal Methodism and Slavery” from the 
organization of the Methodist societies in 1766 to the close 
of the Civil War. The bibliography will indicate that many 
books have been written on various phases of this subject; 
but none of them gives a complete picture of the Church and 
slavery. Indebtedness to these former writers has been 
scrupulously acknowledged in the footnotes. 


In the consideration of a subject so filled with controversy 
it is difficult to avoid the charge of prejudice. Suffice it to 
say that if the author had any prejudices in the inception of 
this work they were those common to northern Methodists. 
However, the work was undertaken, not to sustain a theory 
but to discover the truth. 


It is probable that many theories as to the past attitude 
of Methodism towards slavery must be abandoned because 
they are based upon prejudice and self-interest rather than 
upon fact. When Methodist leaders are ready to face the 
facts and admit the wrongs and errors of past decades, real 
Methodist union is possible. Because such an understanding 
has its basis in truth it will be eminently desirable. 

Bin 
Upper Iowa Umversity, 
March 31, 1926. 























| 
> 
i) 


+ ier 
2 ee. oO 


ae 












NOTE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT 


The author wishes to acknowledge his indebtedness to 
those who assisted him at the following libraries: Virginia 
State Historical, Drew Theological Seminary, Upper lowa 
University, Chicago Public, Newberry, Evanston Public, 
Northwestern University, and Garrett Biblical Institute. 
Thanks are also due to those who generously placed at my 
disposal the files of the Nashville Christian Advocate and 
the Richmond Christian Advocate, and to those having the 
supervision of the Confederate Museum at Richmona. in 
particular, Dr. Samuel G. Ayers, of Garrett Biblical Institute, 
because of his familiarity with’ the sources in other libraries, 
rendered invaluable assistance. 


For their suggestions, the author is indebted to Professor 
James A. James of Northwestern; to Professor William D. 
Schermerhorn of Garrett Biblical Institute; and to Professor 
J. N. Norwood of Alfred University. The topic was sug- 
gested by Professor James, who has been a constant inspira- 
tion during the period required to complete the study. “The 
Schism in the Methodist Church, 1844’ by Professor 
Norwood has proved very valuable, especially his chapters 
on the General Conference of 1844 and the succeeding years. 


At Upper Iowa University, President J..P. Van Horn and 
Professors Earl A. Roadman, Elizabeth Nichols and Annie ~ 
L. Corbitt have read the manuscript and offered many helpful 
criticisms. Miss Nellie Jones, a major student in History, 
has been especially helpful on chapter VI. 


In addition to these. thanks are due to Dr. D. M. Parker 
for the loan of his grandfather’s autobiography; to Miss 
Sarah C. Stevenson for the loan of her grandfather’s journal ; 
to the Rev. Clyde E. Baker for reading portions of the manu-. 
script; to the Rev. Roy L. Smith, who made possible the 
completion of the work; and to Mr. Edwin ‘Garrison of 
Drew Theological Seminary, who checked almost half of the 
footnotes. Finally, without the sympathy and encourage- 
ment of my wife, this volume would not have been completed. 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2022 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https://archive.org/details/episcopalmethodi00swan 


CONTENTS 


Jeph ned Wed) 
THE FORMING OF PRECEDENTS 


sepapter Page 
/ # 1g ANTI-SLAVERY PRECEDENTS .. 1 
/ CA Anti-slavery principles and action of M Wnpdive Negdev et 


Early Methodist legislation against slavery—Anti-slavery 
my activities of Methodist publications. 


f At ACOMPROMISING PRECEDENTS . . i) 
ve om Reaction of the pro-slavery group to the vantont enone 


Slaveholding among early Methodists—The compromise 
of Methodist leaders—Compromise legislation of the 
Methodist Church prior to 183I—Conservatism of Meth- 
odist publications. 


Ill. Pritanturopic PRECEDENTS 27 
The solution of the question: “What halt be ene ay! 
negroes’—The importance of the negro’s soul—Colon- 
ization—The pragmatic test. 


PAR Tt 
THE PERIOD OF AGITATION 


f1V.¢ CONSERVATIVE METHODISM .. . 39 
Anti-slavery agitation prior to 183I1—The anti slavery 

A movement after I183I1—The conservatism of the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church—Attitude of official Methodism 
towards Garrison—Attitude of Methodism towards 
Methodist abolitionists. 


V. THe TrousLers oF METHODISM . . 58 
The first test of strength—Reactionary spirit in nee 
nati—The fear of anti-slavery agitation—The. address 
of the British Wesleyan Church—A committee on 
Slavery ordered—Agitation of the slavery question by 
radical New Englanders—Scott’s report of the General 
Conference debates on slavery—Slaveholding and the 
election of bishops—The “Pastoral Address” on slavery— 
Reaction to the legislation of the General Conference— 
Accomplishments of the General Conference. 


VI. 


VIL. 


VETTE, 


TX. 


Contents 


THE RULE oF THE BisHops, 1836-1837 . 

New York conference and slavery—Radicalism in the 
New England and New Hampshire conferences—Anti- 
slavery agitation in the Erie conference—Georgta and 
South Carolina conferences on slavery—Attitude of 
border conferences—The anti-slavery controversy 1m 
northern conferences—The New England conferences 
in 1837—Results of the rulings of the bishops. 


THE CRUSHING OF THE ABOLITIONISTS, 1838- 


PSO RF SH NU Le a a 
Methodism and murder of Elijah P. Lovejoy—The antt- 
slavery struggle in New England conferences—Proscrip- 
tion of radicals in other northern conferences—The con- 
servative New York conference—Triumph of the 
reactionary element in Michigan conference—Trials of 
anti-slavery laymen—Proscription of the anti-slavery 
cause of Methodist leaders—Controversy within the 


anti-slavery ranks—Mcthods of creating abolition senti- 


ment—Attitude of other churches towards the Methodist 
controversy—Southern opinion of abolitionism in_ the 
Methodist Church—Charges of unfairness towards the 
conservatives—Results of the proscription of abolitionists 
by Methodism. 


THE METHODIST JUGGERNAUT > (2) ie 
Preparations for the General Conference of [840—The 
address of the bishops—The address of the British 
Wesleyan Church—Abolitionism and the appointment 
of an anti-slavery committee — Bishop Hedding’s 
grievance against Scott and Sunderland—The report of 
the “Committee on Itinerancy’—The appeal of Silas 
Comfort—Slavery no “legal barrier’ to any office in 
Methodism—Abolitionists and the church at Natchez— 
The election of bishops postponed—The “Pastoral 
Address” on slavery—Importance of the General Con- 
ference of 1840. 


THE CHANGING TIDE Jit 92 ne 
Submission of annual conferences to the General 
Conference—Ewvidences of revolt against the General 
Conference—Position of official Methodist papers— 
Secessions from the Methodist Episcopal Church— 
“The Wesleyan Methodist Connection of America’— 
The attempt to bribe Luther Lee—Attitude of secession- 
ists towards conservatives—Mutual recrimation—Effect 
0 f secession upon the Methodist Church—Southern opin- 
ton of the change of northern Methodism—Importance 
of the year 1842, 


69 


1 


93 


102 


Contents 


(Xx) A REVERSAL OF POLICY 


JA 
V4 Ne 


XI. 


XIE: 


{XL 


Comparison of the General Ponerentes OF 1840 ane 
1844—Personnel of the General Conference of I844— 
Scott’s report of the proceedings of the Conference— 
Omission of the topic of slavery during the first days— 
Attitude of the Conference towards slavery—F. A. 
Harding’s appeal—The pacification of the Church—The 
case of Bishop Andrew—Attempts at compromise— 
Influence of New England delegates—Further attempts 
at compr omise—The status of Andrew—Report of the 
“Committee on Slavery’—Reasons for the success of 
the radicals—Coalition’ of abolition and border dele- 
gates—Resulis of the General Conference of 1844. 


PA Ty 
THE EVER-WIDENING BREACH 


Tue MetuHopist EpiscopAL CHURCH, SOUTH . 
Proposals for division prior to 1844 — A _ plan of 
separation submitted to the General Conference—The 
declaration of the southern delegates—Report of the 
“Committee of Nine’—Conference of southern delegates 
in New York—Decision of southern conferences—T he 
Lomsville Conventton—The General Conference of 
[846—The fruits of Asbury’s policy. 


SoME DIFFERENCES OF OPINION 

Conciliatory attitude of Methodist A fstiaie-uHindences 
of prejudice and ill-uill—Attitude towards the virtual 
deposition of Andrew—Bishop Soule’s wimvitation to 
Bishop Andrew—lIll-will developed because of _ the 
Louisville Convention—Bitterness:' as a result of the 
General Conference of 1848. 


THE BorpER WARFARE 

Provisions of the “Plan of Sapiro AM EAaE HO 
of the leaders to the plan—Bishop Soule and the vote 
on adherence—Elliott’s interpretation of the plan— 
Bishop Morris on adherence—The official southern 
interpretation of the plan—The interpretation of the 
plan by northern bishops—The place of minorities in 
the plan—Border controversies—The General Confer- 
ence of 1848. 


XIV: THE” DIVISION “OF THE, ’ BooK’ CoNcERN 


PROPERTY 
Vote on the “Stxth eer ates WMeticiek: -Redclion af 
northerners to the outcome—Reaction of southerners to 
the northern action—Southern attempts to secure a fatr 


117 


137 


148 


158 


172 


Contents 


share of the property—An appeal to the Federal Courts— 

The New York Case—The Cincinnati Case—The appeal 

to the Supreme Court—The settlement of the case— 

Northern opinion on the decision of the Court—The 
_. significance of this controversy. 


XV. THE TREND OF THE TIMES ; 

The Andrew case and slavery—Attitude ey ‘Southern 
Methodists toward slavery—Attitude of northern Meth- 
odists towards slavery—Conservatism of official Meth- 
odist publications—Conclusions on the question of 
slavery in the two churches. 


XVI. THE ENTERING WEDGE 
Anti-slavery resolutions in New Baetona C on yerenie ee 
Suggested changes in the rule on slavery—The General 
Conference of [852—Radicalism in New England and 
other northern conferences—The sentiment on slavery 
in “The Old Northwest’—Proposed changes in the 
rule on slavery — Attitude of Methodist publications 
towards slavery—The opinion of Matlack—General Con- 
ference of I856—Reaction to the legislation of the 
General Conference—Significance of this Conference. 


XVII.) THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 18600 _.. 
Growth of abolitionsm in the Methodist Guinea 
Conservative strength—Suggested alteration of the 
rule on slavery—The General Conference of I860— 
Reaction to the legislation of the Conference—The 
failure of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 


XVIII. SLAVEHOLDING IN THE MeEtTHopIst EPISco- 
PAL CHURCH : 

The fact of slavery in the heed Methodist CMe 

Northern Methodist slaveholding area—Official com- 


mendation of slaveholders—A comparison of the two 
Churches. 


XIX. SouTHERN METHODISM AND SLAVERY 


Southern conservatives—The ultra party—Legtslation 
on the slavery question. 


XX. THE NORTHERN INVADERS . . a) Ae 
Migration of northern Methodists to Couliene Lr ALAe 
Influence of radical northerners—Attitude of the 
southern Church towards the newcomers—Purpose of 
northern preachers and bishops—Attitude of southerners 
towards northern conferences—Approval of mobs by 
the southern Methodist Church—Proscription of individ- 
uals of the northern Church—Significance of the action 
of the pro-slavery party. 


188 


203 


219 


234 


243 


PAST 


Contents 


PART IV 
LOOKING TOWARDS CIVIL WAR 


XXI. THe ComproMIse oF 1850 


First reaction to the speeches of Clay Gud Webster— 
Condemnation of Clay and Webster—Simpson’s analysis 
of the Compromise—General Reaction of northern 
Methodists—Support of the Compromise by southern 
Methodist leaders—Theodore Parker and the Nashville 
Christian Advocate—Southern condemnation of northern 
disobedience to law—Effect upon the relations between 
the two Methodisms. 


XXII. First Steps Towarps Civir War . 
Harriet Beecher Stowe’s “Uncle Tom's Cabinet he 
Kansas-Nebraska Bill—The Dred Scoti Decision. 


ea ave) OF CIVIL WAR WL tN", 
Methodism and the Lincoln-Douglas Debates rhe ve- 
opening of the African Slave Trade—John Brown's Raid 
at Harper's Ferry—The election and inauguration of 
—<Abraham Lincoln. 


f XXIV. ) METHODISM AND DISUNION . 

eer Olton: of southern leaders in 1844 and 1825" Colhout 
and Webster on the tendency of Methodist disunion— 
Southern Methodists on the effects of separation— 
Northern Methodist opinion—Wesleyan Methodists on 
disunion—Ecclesiastical disunion equivalent to political 
disunion—Southern Methodists and war—Responsibility 
for the Ciwil War. 


PARTY 
THE PERIOD OF CIVIL WAR 


XXV. THE Loyvatty oF NorRTHERN METHODISTS 
The pride of Methodism and Lincoln’s statement—Meth- 
odist agreement with Lincoln’s purpose in the war— 
Evidences of loyalty in northern conferences—Loyalty 
of northern bishops—Northern Methodists im western 
Virginia—E ffect of the northern Church in Missouri— 
Sequestration of southern Methodist property—The 
election of I1864—Disloyalty of northern minsters and 
laymen—The judgment of history. 

XXVI. THE LovaLty oF SOUTHERN METHODISTS 
Methodist loyalty in the southern states—Loyalty of 


southern Methodist bishops—Support of southern Meth- 
odist papers— Annual conferences loyal to the Richmond 


263 


272 


ZfG 


287 


299 


311 


Contents 


Government—Loyalty of southern Methodist mimisters— 
Disloyalty of southern Methodists to the Confederacy— 
The record of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 


XX Vie ANSWERED PRAYER.) 04002 ee 
The cause of the war according to northern Methodtsts— 
Non-interference with slavery—Advantages of freedom— 
Fremont’s order—Compensated emancitpatton—Emanci- 
pation of slaves in the District of Columbia—Sup pression 
of the African slave trade—Confiscation of the slaves of 
rebel masters—The demand for unconditional emanci- 
pation—President Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation— 
Propaganda in favor of emancipation after July 22, 
I862—“The Prayer of Twenty Millions’—The committee 
of Chicago clergymen—Methodism and the Emancipation 
Proclamation—The employment of negro soldiers— 
The thirteenth amendment—The Government answers 
Methodism’s prayer—Slaveholding by Methodists—The 
General Conference of 1864. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 90) OO OR ISO 
PER 2 ey ee) Eek GW CRI RS 


Episcopal Methodism and 
Slavery 


PART L 
THE FORMING OF PRECEDENTS 


vi a i 
Arte 


Aue ty 
nye yA ‘ny! 


ru 





EPISCOPAL METHODISM 
AND SLAVERY 


OS os WM dd 0 aE 


ANTI-SLAVERY PRECEDENTS 


American Methodists looked to John Wesley for guidance 
on the issue of slavery. lt was natural that they should do 
so, as in other disputed questions, nor did they look in vain. 
The founder of the Methodist societies had spoken in no 
uncertain terms against slavery. It is true that in the original 
rules adopted by Mr. Wesley in 1743 slavery was not con- 
demned because the societies over which he then exercised 
authority were not compelled to deal with the question of 
human bondage. But fifteen years before Clarkson, Wilber- 
force and Granville Sharp undertook to destroy slavery within 
the British possessions, Wesley had formed a “Society for 
the Suppression of the Slave Trade.”! In 1772 he denounced 
the slave trade as “the sum of all villanies.’” 

The first Methodist society in America was organized in 
1766.3 Because of the weakness of the new Church and the 
fact that no general meetings were held until 1773, any 
antagonism shown towards slavery was manifested by in- 
dividual ministers and members of the various societies. It 
was Freeborn Garrettson, one of the earliest Methodist min- 
isters in this country, who, in 1773, not only freed his own 
slaves but boldly condemned slavery in North Carolina.° 
Two years later, he spoke publicly in Virginia against human 
bondage, the result being that several of his audience freed 
their slaves. In fact, so strongly was Garrettson opposed to 
slavery that this, joined with the suspicion in which Method- 
ists of Revolutionary times were held, created considerable 
opposition to the work of the denomination.® Philip Gatch 
of Powhatan County, Virginia, emancipated all his slaves, 
since he was convinced “that all men are by nature equally 
free.””" 

The course taken by these earliest Methodist leaders was 
fully approved by Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury. In 
North Carolina the former condemned slaveholding, but was 
unable to convince one man of his error — Coke says because 


i 


2 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


the impenitent citizen owned twenty-four slaves.* Occasion- 
ally, Coke found that some slaveholders would listen respect- 
fully, but generally they remained obdurate — one even after 
having read “Wesley’s Thoughts on Slavery” “three tumes 
over’ ;? some Church members “raged like a lion” ;?° while 
others unceremoniously shut their doors against the 
preachers, on one occasion because 'the planter in question 
possessed eighty slaves.11 After preaching the funeral ser- 
mon of an influential slaveholder, Coke wrote in his Journal: 
“On Wednesday 6, I preached the late Colonel Bedford’s 
funeral sermon. But I said nothing good of him, for he was 
a violent friend of slavery, and his interest being great 
among the Methodists in these parts, he would have been a 
dreadful thorn in our sides, if the Lord had not in mercy 
taken him away.”8 Coke’s propaganda during April and 
May, 1785, caused mobs to assemble, and rewards to be 
offered to those who flogged him.!* Finally, a bill, in which 
he was charged with sedition, was presented against him 
before the Grand Jury. When Coke eluded his tormenters, 
nineteen men offered to pursue him and bring him back.!® 
Of all the leaders of early American Methodism, Francis 
Asbury was easily the greatest. Religious fervor, tremen- 
dous enthusiasm, untiring zeal— together with a genius for 
organization and leadership — made Asbury the worthy leader 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America, even as the 
same qualities had placed John Wesley at the head of the 
Methodist movement in England. That Asbury hated slav- 
ery is fully attested by his journal. In the year of Inde- 
pendence he wrote: “How will the sons of oppression answer 
for their conduct, when the great Proprietor of all shall call 
them to account!’ When he observed the exertions of the 
Friends in behalf of the slaves, he declared that the Method- 
ists must follow their example. In reply to those who 
justified slavery from the biblical record, Asbury asserted 
that polygamy and servitude were allowed by the ceremonial 
law of the Old Testament that greater evils might be avoided. 
But he maintained that the spirit of compromise was not 
present at the Creation but was the result of the “Fall’’.1® 
Some of Asbury’s sermons were condemnatory of the 
system of slavery; in a few instances his auditors gave heed 
to his exhortations. By conviction, then, Asbury was an 
abolitionist, one of the last entries in his journal being an 


Anti-Slavery Precedents 3 


expression of sympathy for the slaves and of censure for 
their masters.!* 


With the leaders of the early Methodist societies so 
strongly opposed to slavery it was inevitable that the con- 
ferences of the Church should deal with the subject. Al- 
though annual meetings of all Methodist ministers were 
held, beginning with 1773,1® it was not until 1780 that official 
action was taken against slavery.19 The conference required 
all travelling preachers*° who held slaves to free them; they 
acknowledged that slavery was “contrary to the dictates of 
conscience and pure religion,’ and opposed to the principles 
of the Golden Rule. They censured their slaveholding 
friends and advised the manumission of the slaves.24_ Three 
years later, the ministers passed still more stringent rules. In 
all states which permitted emancipation of slaves, the assist- 
ant pastors were instructed to deal “faithfully and plainly” 
with slaveholding local preachers” for another year and re- 
port to the next conference. They also adopted as a resolu- 
tion the covert threat that “It may then be necessary to 
suspend them.”?3 The rules for 1784 were still more drastic. 
Those who had been warned and yet persisted in holding 
slaves, or bought them for no other purpose than to hold 
them in bondage, were to be expelled; travelling preachers 
who refused to manumit their slaves when it was possible 
were to be employed no longer.” 

The organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church at 
the “Christmas Conference”, held in Baltimore in 1784, was 
a notable event. It marked the separation of American 
Methodist societies from Wesley’s jurisdiction; Asbury was 
ordained deacon and elder, and elected to the General Super- 
intendency — all in the same day;?® and slavery received 
marked attention. The rule adopted forbade “The buying 
or selling the bodies and souls of men, women and children, 
with an intention to enslave them.’”° While they hesitated 
to make new rules for religious societies already in existence, 
yet they believed that only the sternest possible action would 
be adequate.?’ In regard to slavery they said: “We view it 
as contrary to the golden law of God, on which hang all the 
law and the prophets, and the unalienable rights of mankind, 
as well as every principle of the Revolution, to hold in deep- 
est debasement, in a more abject slavery than is perhaps to 


4 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


be found in any part of the world except America, so many 
souls that are all capable of the image of God.”?? 

Following the Christmas Conference anti-slavery Meth- 
odists urged the legislatures of some of the southern 
states to adopt the policy of gradual emancipation. The 
Virginia conference had declared : “We do hold in the deepest 
abhorrence the practice of slavery, and shall not cease to 
seek its destruction by all wise and prudent means.’’8 Con- 
sistently with this declaration the ministers circulated a 
petition asking the gradual emancipation of all slaves within 
the state of Virginia.2® A Mr. Fry, one of the Methodists, 
was elected to the Virginia legislature. Of him, Coke wrote 
that he was “ a precious man, and, I trust, will be eloquent 
in the House of Delegates for the emancipation of the Slaves. 
He is to present our petition.”?° In North Carolina, also, 
the Methodists were active in drawing up a petition asking- 
the General Assembly of the state to permit masters to free 
their slaves. For a time it seemed that they would be suc- 
cessful for Coke lent his aid and Asbury won the governor’s 
support for the measure.*? 

The testimony of the Church relative to the evil of slavery 
continued to be very similar to that of the Christmas Con- 
ference of 1784, although changes were made in the rule. 
Thus, in 1796 the rule adopted forbade “the buying or selling 
of men, women or children.’’*? It was at this time that the 
bishops were requested by the General Conference to draw 
up rules on slavery with annotations on the same. The 
bishops attempted to show that slaveholding was wrong 
because it was contrary to biblical teachings. In reply to 
the question as to what should be done “for the extirpation 
of the crying evil of African slavery,” they answered that 
all slaveholders should be excluded from official positions 
and gave annual conferences power to act in all such cases. 
Before slaveholders were admitted to membership in the 
Church, they were to be urged to free their slaves. If a 
member sold a slave he was to be expelled immediately ; if he 
purchased a servant, the ensuing quarterly conference®? was 
to determine the duration of the slave’s servitude. If the 
master refused to obey the ruling of this body, he was to be 
expelled. The children of a female slave, obtained by 
purchase, were to be freed, the females at twenty-one and 
the males at twenty-five years of age. In conclusion, the 


Anti-Slavery Precedents 4) 


ministers and members were “requested to consider the sub- 
ject with deep attention, till the ensuing General Conference,” 
so that they might the better “take further steps towards 
the eradicating of this enormous evil from that part of the 
Church of God to which they are united.’ 

Following this strong declaration, Asbury required all 
ministers to be anti-slavery before they were ordained.®° 
The bishop also assisted Philip Sands in drawing up a 
statement for the officiary of the Church to sign, setting forth 
their opposition to slavery. Asbury gave his reason for this 
action in the following language: “It appears to me, that we 
can never fully reform the people, until we reform the 
preachers; and that hitherto, except purging the travelling 
connexion, we have been working at the wrong end.” Con- 
sistency demanded that, if the local preachers were permitted 
to hold slaves, travelling ministers should be allowed to do 
likewise, and keep overseers upon their quarters.*® 

In 1800 the General Conference voted that annual confer- 
ences should further the work of emancipation by circulating 
petitions praying state legislatures to enact laws providing 
for gradual manumission of slaves, where such laws were not 
already in existence. Further, they declared that when it 
was possible to do so, a travelling preacher must free his 
slaves or “forfeit his ministerial character in the Methodist 
Episcopal Church.”’* A General Conference “Address” was 
sent to all members and friends of the Church, in which the 
evils of slavery were set forth, together with the inconsist- 
ency of citizens of the United States holding slaves, and the 
opposition of New Testament teachings to slavery. All 
members of the Church were urged to aid ministers in carry- 
ing out the General Conference rules.*® 

In at least two conferences anti-slavery action was taken. 
Officials of Livingston Circuit in the Western conference 
voluntarily offered to accept the judgment of the quarterly 
conference on the manumission of their slaves. The record 
reads : “We, thereby, had the unspeakable pleasure of decree- 
ing salvation from slavery in favor of twenty-two immortal 
souls ; we did not reprobate one of them.’ They 2 asked 
the Western conference for permission to require slave- 
holders seeking admission into the Church “to submit their 
slaves to the judgment of the Conference, who shall deter- 
mine the time of servitude . . ., and have a bill of manu- 

? 


6 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


mission recorded in the same manner as the form of Dis- 
cipline requires for buying a slave.”89 Cartwright also cites 
the South Carolina conference action in 1806. When a 
slaveholder sought admission into the travelling ministry 
of the conference he was admitted on trial and assigned 
to a circuit “provided that he make provision for the eman- 
cipation of his slaves.’ When the conference met the 
following year he “had made a settlement of some character, 
satisfactory to the Conference, and was accordingly ad- 
mitted.’’4° 


The General Conference of 1808 authorized “each annual 
conference to form their own regulations relative to buying 
and selling slaves.’”41 In: the Western conference the 
preachers were divided but the suggestions of Bishop M’Ken- 
dree in favor of drastic action against slavery were cordially 
received.42, Asbury wrote that this conference adopted “a 
regulation respecting slavery; it was, that no member of (a) 
society, or preacher, should sell or buy a slave unjustly, 
inhumanly, or covetously; the case, on complaint, to be 
examined for a member by the quarterly meeting; and for a 
preacher an appeal to an annual conference. Where the guilt 
was proved the offender to be expelled.’’*? In 1812 the 
Tennessee conference** examined and finally approved Levin 
Edney’s character, “Learner Blackman being security that 
he'll set his slave free, when practicable.’45 That Blackman 
was to be trusted by the anti-slavery faction is evident from 
the rules adopted under his leadership. The conference 
decided that the preacher in charge of a local church should 
cite members who bought and sold slaves before the ensuing 
quarterly conference which should determine whether the 
property in question had been bought or sold because of 
“Justice and mercy”; if a majority decided adversely, the 
guilty parties were to be expelled immediately. The case 
might be appealed to the next annual conference.’ ° 

Three years later, the slavery question again troubled the 
Tennessee conference. In answer to certain questions asked 
by Thomas L. Douglas, the conference decided that a person 
was engaging in the slave trade if he bought or sold slaves, 
even in order to keep husbands and wives, or parents and 
children together. Though it might be a case obviously 
“consistent with justice and mercy,” the offender should 


Anti-Slavery Precedents 7 


be arraigned before the Church officials as though guilty of 
a crime.*? 


At its first session, the Ohio conference decided that 
Joseph Oglesby must free “his negro Girl at the age of 
25 years together with her posterity if any at the age of 
21 years.”*8 Rules, providing for the gradual manumission 
of all slaves purchased, and the expulsion of church members 
who sold slaves except at the request of the latter or “to 
prevent a separation in families,” were also adopted. On 
all other occasions, three non-slaveholders were to decide 
whether or not the sale was a proper one.*® In 1813 con- 
sideration of the slavery question was deferred until the 
following year,°° when the former rules were retained.*! 

Following the General Conference of 1816,°* the Tennessee 
conference was again concerned with this exciting topic. It 
was decided that power to deal with cases of slaveholding, 
among both ministers and laymen, should be vested in the 
quarterly conferences.5? Peter Cartwright thereupon ar- 
raigned slaveholding members in the Tennessee portion of 
his district. So intense was the feeling against him that 
Cartwright was put on trial at the conference of 1818. For 
three days a bitter contest was waged. All attempts to 
silence Cartwright were unavailing and he finally emerged 
from the attacks of his enemies victorious. The conference 
supported Cartwright, not only because of his anti-slavery 
principles but because the right of free speech was involved. 
Only three votes were recorded against this valiant leader of 
anti-slavery Methodists.5* 


By 1819 the strife was still more bitter. The anti-slavery 
faction retained a majority of five, and harmony was an 
almost negligible virtue. Two slaveholding applicants for 
admission to the conference were rejected; when others 
applied for deacon’s®® orders, they met the same fate. Even 
though Gilbert D. Taylor avowed his purpose to free his 
slaves, he was excluded until manumission was actually ac- 
complished.®* Jt was contended that the action of the con- 
ference was contrary to the Methodist Discipline,5? but 
Cartwright was able to cite Andrew Jackson to prove that 
manumission of slaves was permitted by Tennessee. As a 
result of Jackson’s legal advice, many preachers were com- 
pelled to free their slaves. Further, the anti-slavery element 


8 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


elected delegates to the General Conference of 1820, where, 
in spite of the work of the pro-slavery party, the action of 
the Tennessee conference was approved.°® 

By action of the General Conference of 1820 the attack 
upon slavery was the task of the whole Church rather than 
of the annual conferences.5® In the Tennessee conference, 
the old dispute broke out afresh, with James Axley and 
Enoch Moore® leading the anti-slavery forces. Axley op- 
posed slaveholders in official positions and sought to prevent 
them from preaching. Both ministers carried their propa- 
ganda so far that they refused to allow a slaveholder to 
lead a public prayer-meeting.®’ Again, in 1824,° the slavery 
question was brought to the attention of the Tennessee 
conference through “An Address from the Moral Religious 
Manumission Society of West Tennessee.” In reply to this 
address, the conference said: “We concur in the sentiments 
that slavery is an evil to be deplored, and that it should 
be counteracted by every judicious and religious exertion. 

The anti-slavery sentiment of the Methodist Church was 
also reflected in the official and semi-official publications®* of 
the denomination. In 1819 The Methodist Magazine called 
slavery “‘the curse of America.”®® The sympathy of the 
magazine for negroes was also shown by the account of the 
sudden death of a master who had ill-treated his slave.® 
The Christian Advocate and Journal was interested in the 
manumission of slaves in New York.®” Lewis Garrett of 
the Tennessee conference congratulated New York on this 
work in behalf of humanity, and his message found a place 
in the official Church paper.®® 

In succeeding years, the Christian Advocate continued to 
testify to the interest of the Church in negroes. People were 
warned against kidnappers who took negro children from 
free states to southern markets.°® The pity of the editor 
was further excited by the account of a slave ship which 
arrived at Havana with three thousand sick slaves, six 
hundred of whom died. In distress the editor wrote: “Three 
thousand human beings compressed in the hold of a single 
ship! Who can imagine the sufferings which these poor 
creatures endured.””° Attention was also given to the activi- 
ties of anti-slavery societies. At Smithfield, Ohio, a society 
was organized to aid in abolishing slavery. At least twelve 
such organizations, patterned after the Maryland Anti-slavery 


Anti-Slavery Precedents by 


Society, had been formed by 1827.7 Memorials from the 
people of Maine,”* and of the Anti-slavery Society of 
Washington City,” praying the abolition of slavery in the 
District of Columbia, were also printed. 


Zion's Herald was still more enthusiastic in its advocacy 
of anti-slavery principles. The manumission of slaves in 
New York was especially commended. Under the heading, 
“A Proud Day for New York,” the editor declared that 
the action of the state would be a blessing not only to the 
negroes but also to their owners. The opportunity was 
seized to urge southern states to provide for gradual emancti- 
pation within their own boundaries. The editor was certain 
that other states would find, as New York had already dis- 
covered, that manumission of slaves was not only morally 
but financially beneficial.” 


It is apparent that individual leaders, conferences and 
official publications of the early Methodist Episcopal Church 
furnished abundant material upon which a partizan could 
base his contention that Asbury and his contemporaries were 
abolitionists.*® There can be no question that many of them 
earnestly strove to accomplish the manumission of all slaves 
by some gradual and humanitarian process. The fact that 
the ‘Christmas Conference” of 1784 was so unequivocally 
opposed to slavery is conclusive evidence that the newly 
organized Church was uncompromisingly against “the sum 
of all villanies.’ To what extent they may have swerved 
from their original purpose and the reasons for their action 
will be shown in succeeding chapters. 


1. Townsend, New History of Methodism, Volume I., p. 370. The 
change in the English attitude towards slavery is seen from the 
fact that Hawkins had as his flagship The Jesus. ‘“‘He ordered his 
erews ‘to serve God daily’ and ‘to love one another’’’. (Channing, 
History of the United States, Volume I., p. 116; cf. Thompson, 
John Wesley as a social Reformer, p. 43). The date was 1562. 

2. Wesley, Journal, Volume V., pp. 445-6; February 12, 1772. 

3. For a contrary claim see, The Christian Advocate, Volume 99, p. 
1357: November 6, 1924. 

4. In 1773 a meeting of all American Methodist ministers was held 

in Philadelphia. 

Bangs, Life of Freeborn Garrettson, p. 39. 

Ibid., p. 60. Methodists were considered disloyal. 

Townsend, A New History of Methodism, Volume II., p. 80. 

Coke, Journal, Volume I., p. 33. 

wP ibid: , + p..'40. 

a0 EDIGs. ) Deu 41. 

11. Ibid., pp. 42-3. 

12. Ibid., p. 35-6. 


© 06 ITO 


10 


13. 
14. 
15. 
16. 
17. 


18. 


19. 
20. 


21. 


Eptscopal Methodism and Slavery 


Ibid., p. 69. No trial seems to have been held. 

Asbury, Journal, Volume IL., p. 141; June 23, 1776. 

Ibid., p. 214; June 10, 1778. 

Ibid., Volume II., p. 305; January 1, 1798. 

Ibid., Volume [III., p. 373; January 8, 1815. Asbury died in 
March, 1815. 

Other individuals continued the struggle against slavery. The 
father of James B. Finley, convinced that slavery was wrong, 
freed his fourteen slaves and moved from Kentucky to Ohio. The 
twelve freedmen who accompanied him were supported for a whole 
year (Finley, Autobiography, pp. 110-11. Finley was at this time 
—1796—sixteen years of age). At a later time Peter Cartwright 
did likewise, lest his children marry slaveholders and because of 
the increasing tendency of the people to justify slavery (Cart- 
wright, Autobiography, pp. 244-5). Mr. Willis, a follower of As- 
bury, was so bold as to. preach to five hundred colored people 
from the text: ‘“‘And the nation to whom they shall be in bondage 
will I judge, said God: and after that they shall come forth, and 
serve me in this place.’’ (Asbury, Journal, Volume II., p. 288; 
June 25, 1797. The text is from Acts 7:7). Equally brave was 
Jacob Gruber, a Methodist preacher in Maryland. He was arrested 
and charged with inciting insurrection and insubordination among 
the slaves. Although he was tried before a slaveholding judge 
and jury he was acquitted on the ground that he had only exer- 
cised his right of free speech. One reason for his success may 
have been that he was ably defended by Roger B. Taney, after- 
wards Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and famous for the 
Dred Scott Decision. The attitude of Gruber towards slavery may 
be seen from the statement which he made at the time of the 
trial: ‘‘ ‘I hope, while I keep my senses, I shall consider involuntary 
perpetual slavery miserable injustice, a system of robbery and theft’ ’’. 
(Tyler, Memoir of Roger Brooke Taney, pp. 124-31; and Zion’s 
Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXVIII., p. 86, col. 4; 
June 3, 1857). Cartwright says “‘there can be no doubt that the 
course pursued by early Methodist preachers was the cause of the 
emancipation of thousands of this degraded race of human beings.’’ 
General conferences were held annually until 1796, when quadren- 
nial general conferences were inaugurated, together with the 
Lifer pie annual conferences composed of the ministers of a certain 
section 

This conference was held in Baltimore (Paine, Life and Times of 
McKendree, Volume I., p. 213). 

A “travelling preacher’ is one, who, in the economy of a church 
having an intinerant system, travels from place to place under the 
direction of the appointing power of the annual conference. At 
present they are fully ordained ministers who, in theory at least, 
can be sent to any appointment in the conference. 

Eddy, Journal (manuscript), p. 255. See also, Elliott, The Great 
Secession, pp. 31-2; Sunderland, Anti-Slavery Manual, p. 60; Arm- 
strong, History of the Old Baltimore Conference, p. 48; Dixon, 
shee raatt in America, p. 393; Emory, History of the Discipline, 
Pp. : 


. A “local preacher”? is one amenable to the District and Annual con- 


ferences and under the direction of some ordained minister. He is 
not a member of the Annual conference. 


. Eddy, Journal, p. 255. Cf. Elliott, The Great Secession, p. 32; 


Emory, History of the Discipline, p. 19; Dixon, Methodism in 
America, p.. 393: 


. Eddy, Journal, p. 256. Cf. Emory, History of the Discipline, p. 21. 
. Asbury, Journal, Volume I., p. 378. Coke was also made a general 


superintendent or bishop at this time. 


. Elliott, The Great Secession, p. 33. 
. Ibid., pp. 33-4. See also, Long, Pictures of Slavery in Church and 


State, pp. 27-9. All members of the Methodist Church were required 
to free their slaves—those between forty and forty-five years by 
the time they were forty-five years of age; those between twenty- 
five and forty within five years; those between twenty and twenty- 


47. 


53. 
54, 


Anti-Slavery Precedents 1] 


five by the time they were thirty; all under twenty were to be man- 
umitted when twenty-five years. of age; and all infants at birth. 
Assistant pastors were required to keep records of all deeds by 
which slaves were granted their freedom. Because of the newness 
of the rule, any member who desired to do so might quietly with- 
draw from the Church within twelve months. Those who bought or 
sold slaves except for the purpose of freeing them were to be im- 
mediately expelled. 


. Elliott, The Great Secession, p, 35. Cf. Eddy, Journal, p. 256; 


and Lee, The Life and Times of Jesse Lee, p. 160 


. Coke, Journal, Volume I., p. 39. 
. Ibid., p. 48. The slaveholders said: ‘‘These Methodists and Bap- 


tists will never rest, till they get their knives into our bellies.’’ 


. Coke, Journal, Volume dS a fie Ge 
: Elliott, The Great Secession, D. 37. Elliott emphasized the ‘“‘or’’ 


because it was later changed to! ‘and.’’ In consequence the rule was 
misinterpreted. See post, p. 116, footnote 57. 


. A quarterly conference is composed of the official members of the 


local Church, 


. Journals of the General Conference, Volume I., pp. 22-3 (1796). 


See also, Strickland, Life and Times of Francis Asbury, pp. 146-7. 


. Asbury, Journal, Volume Il., p. 269; November 25, 1796. 

ATO Beall oS Was March 25, 1798. 

. Journals of the General Conference, Volume I., pp. 40-41 (1800). 
. Journals, of the General Conference, Volume I., pp. 41-2 (1800). 


Cf. Fuller, An Appeal to the Records, pp. 36-8. 


. Elliott, South-Western Methodism, pp. 15-16. 

. Cartwright, Fifty Years a Presiding Elder, pp. 49-50. 

. Journals of the General Conference, Volume I., p. 93 (1808). 

. Paine, Life and Times of Bishop M’Kendree, Volume L., p. 216., Cf. 


Young, Autobiography of a Pioneer, pp. 249-50. 


. Asbury, Journal, Volume III., p. 251; October 1, 1808. See also, 


Sweet, The Rise of Methodism in the West, p. 148; and Cartwright, 
Fifty ‘Years a Presiding Elder, p. 54. Asbury places the date of 
the conference on October 1; the other sources say October 7. 


. The Western Conference was divided in 1812, forming the Ten- 


nessee and Ohio conferences (See Sweet, Circuit Rider Days along 
the Ohio, p. 27.) 


. Price, The Holston Methodism, pp. 474-5. 
: McFerrin, Methodism in Tennessee, Volume II., pp. 283- 4. The fol- 


lowing year, one of the local preachers appealed his case to the 
annua] conference. But after a very acrimonious debate, the con- 
ference confirmed the decision of the local officials (Paine, Life 
and Times of Bishop M’Kendree, Volume I., pp. 288-9). 

McFerrin, Methodism in Tennessee, Volume II., p. 400. While Price 
(The Holston Methodism, pp. 213- 14) considers this action an un- 
warranted assumption of power, it is clear that the General Confer- 
ence of 1812 gave annual conferences the right to change local 
rules at pleasure. Cf. Elliott, The Great Secession, p. 41 

Sweet, Circuit-Rider Days along the Ohio, p. 102. 


. Ibid., pp. 108-9. 

SL oy Co ety opal neds 

MADIG= Dorota 

. The General Conference of 1816 left the rule on slavery unchanged. 


The delegates re-affirmed the opposition of Methodism to slavery, 
the ineligibility of slaveholders to official positions in the Church, 
and renewed the requirement that every minister acquiring slaves 
in any manner emancipate them if it were practicable. As 
before, the responsibility for carrying out the rules was placed 
upon the annual conferences (Journals of the General Conference, 
Volume I., pp. 169-70 (1816). Cf, Elliott, The Great Secession, 
pp. 41-2; Shipp, Methodism in South Carolina, pp. 474-5; Paine, 
Life and Times of Bishop M’Kendree, Volume I., p. 366). 


McFerrin, Methodism in Tennessee, Volume II., pp. 461-8. Cf. 
Price, The Holston Methodism, Volume II., pp. 240-43. 

Macy Christian Advocate, Volume XIII., p. 114, col. 4; October 
30, 1 


. A “deacon” is a minister who has not met all the requirements rela- 


tive to study and preaching experience. Generally, one more year 


12 


56. 
57. 


58. 


Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


is required to complete the preparation so that he may be an 
‘*elder.’’ 

After vainly petitioning the legislatures of Tennessee and Georgia 
for permission to free them, he succeeded in Pennsylvania. 
McFerrin, Methodism in Tennessee, Volume II., pp. 160-61. Cf. 
Price, The Holston Methodism, Volume II., pp. 253-4; Paine, Life 
and Times of Bishop M’Kendree, Volume IL. pp. 378-9. Where the 
laws of the state permitted, ministers were required to free their 
slaves. 

Cartwright, Autobiography, pp. 195-6. Cf. Price, The Holston 
Methodism, Volume II., pp. 254-6; and Western Christian Advocate, 
Volume XIII, p. 114, col. 4; October 30, 1846. 


. Armstrong ,The Old Baltimore Conference, p. 200; and Shipp, His- 


tory of Methodism in South Carolina, p. 475. Cf. Elliott, The Great 
Secession, p. 42; and Dixon, Methodism in America, p. 396. 


. Presiding elder and minister respectively. \ 
. McFerrin, Methodism in Tennessee, Volume II., pp. 494-5. Cf. 


Western Christian Advocate, Volume XIII., p. 114, col. 4; October 
30, 1846. 


. The rule of 1820 remained unchanged (Journals of the General 


Conference. Volume I., p. 294—1824.) 


. McFerrin, Methodism in Tennessee, Volume III., p. 271. 
. The Methodist Magazine began publication in 1818, the Christian 


Advocate and Journal in 1826, and Zion’s Herald in 1828. The first 
two were official, while the last was supported by the conferences 
of New England. Inasmuch as these publications circulated in all 
the conferences of the Church, their attitude towards slavery indi- 
cates rather accurately tne sentiment of the denomination. 


. The Methodist Magazine, Volume II., p. 185 (1819). 
. Ibid., Volume III., p. 80 (1820). This story was contained in a letter 


from Alexander Cummins to James Quinn, dated December 9, 1819. 


. Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume I., p. 1381, col. 4; April 


21, 1827. An article from the ‘‘Morning Star’’ was quoted, in which 
the action of the legislature was commended (Ibid., p. 179, col. 3; 
Sab Nbc Mi ar Co 


. Ibid., Volume II.,)p: 19, col. 2; October, '\5,° 1827: The letter was 


dated August 14, 1827. 


. Christian Advocate and Journal and Zion’s Herald, Volume IV, p. 


55, col. 3; December 4, 1829. The two papers were combined for 
several years. 


. Christian Advocate and Wesleyan Journal and Zion’s Herald, 


Volume IV., p. 107, col. 2; March 5, 1830. 


. Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume I., p. 181. col. 4; April 


21, 1827; and Ibid., Volume II., p. 99, col. 8; February 22, 1828. 
The Maryland Society was responsible for the repeal of a state law 
authorizing the immediate sale of all colored persons within the 
state, who were convicted of petty criminal] offenses. 


. Christian Advocate and Journal and Zion’s Herald, Volume IV., p. 


91) col. 3; February 5. 1830. 


. Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume II., p. 95, col. 3; February 


15, 1828. 


. The first copy of this paper was published January 9, 1823. The 


first reference to slavery was ‘‘The Negro’s Prayer’ (Volume I., 
p. 130, col. 1; August 21, 1823). 


- Zion’s Herald, Volume V., pp. 102, col. 5 and 108, col. 1; June 


27, 1827. 


(6. One of the Methodist abolitionists of the period just prior to the 


Civil War declared that the early leaders of the Methodist Church 
were “Christian abolitionists, and contended for emancipation’? (Long, 
Pictures of Slavery in Church and State, p. 30.) 


CHAPTER VII 


COMPROMISING PRECEDENTS 


From the opposition aroused by Methodist leaders and 
conferences it is apparent that there was a formidable pro- 
slavery party both within and without the Church. The 
strife which Coke and Asbury and their followers had begun? 
was responsible for factions in conferences, legislation in the 
more extreme states forbidding manumission of slaves, and 
serious embarrassment to the evangelistic work of the Church. 


That Methodists were responsible for much of the adverse 
action taken by slave states there can be no doubt. In 
December, 1800, Asbury was informed that the General 
Conference “address” of that year had been responsible for 
“a law which prohibited a minister’s attempting to instruct 
any number of blacks with the door shut; and authorized a 
peace-officer to break open the doors in such cases, and dis- 
perse or whip the offenders.’* Ministers were forbidden to 
hold prayer-meetings for slaves before sunrise or after nine 
o’clock at night. The preachers themselves seem to have 
approved these restrictions and become a part of the southern 
system, for Asbury complained that they were “countrymen, 
and do not speak as boldly as they ought to speak.’ 

The antagonism of the pro-slavery party may be illustrated 
by an account which James O, Andrew? contributed in 1830. 
In the first years of the nineteenth century, two ministers, 
George Dougherty and John Harper, were stationed at 
Charleston, South Carolina. Harper received some anti- 
slavery pamphlets from the North, urging that the South 
Carolina legislature be memorialized “in behalf of the abol- 
ition of slavery.” Harper, who deemed it imprudent to 
engage in the enterprise, showed a copy of the document to 
a friend. The rumor spread that he was in possession of an 
abolition document, and Harper was required to make an 
explanation to a city official. To prevent further difficulty, 
the pamphlets were burned. Nevertheless, a mob assembled 
and seized Harper as he left his church. The preacher 


13 


41 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


managed to escape. The following evening, the rabble re- 
turned and, not finding Harper, seized Dougherty and 
“pumped” him. From this indignity he was rescued by a 
lady member of his congregation. Within half a century 
such treatment would have been considered mild for those 
having in their possession abolition pamphlets of any kind, 
but Andrew wrote of these two men and their persecutors: 
“It has stamped indelible reproach on the memory of the 
persecutors of religion, encircled with additional laurels the 
brow of an eminent minister of Jesus Christ.’’® 

Not only did the pro-slavery party outside the Church 
object to prohibitions put upon slavery by the Church, but 
the slaveholding members did likewise. In North Carolina, 
Asbury found himself practically helpless in his work among 
the slaves, not only because of the state laws but also because 
of the opposition of his own members whom he discovered 
hiring out their slaves to the highest bidder.” So intense 
was the hatred of people for Asbury and his principles that 
the bishop wrote: “Perhaps we shall soon be thought unfit 
for the company of their dogs.”8 Asbury discovered that 
southern people were concerned with such topics as “peace 
with the Creek Indians, the settlement of new lands, good 
trade, buying slaves, &c.’” 

There is no evidence to prove that slaveholding Methodists 
attempted to show that leaders of the Church had actually 
held slaves and justified the practice. Such, however, was 
the fact. Wesley administered the rite of baptism to a slave- 
holder without requiring that his slaves be freed, and re- 
frained from censuring slaveholding Methodists in the United 
States or West Indies.1° George Whitefield used slaves in 
connection with an orphanage in Georgia. He defended 
his practice with Old Testament examples and clinched “his 
argument with the declaration that ‘hot countries cannot be 
cultivated without negroes’.”44 It was also asserted — and 
one writer defied any one to prove the contrary!*— that 
Coke bought slaves for land which belonged to a mission. 
{n this instance the purchase of slaves was justified because 
the gift of land was “providential” and slaves were needed 
to till the soil. Besides, it was held that slaves would re- 
ceive better treatment at the hands of Methodists than 
“unawakened” persons.!* The only reason that M’Kendree 


«ce 


did not buy slaves was because he was advised that “a | 


Compromising Precedents 15 


slave would not obey him more readily than if he belonged 
to another.” 

The Methodist Episcopal Church may have become a 
slaveholding institution. The Virginia conference of 1794 
was much disturbed by the slavery question. Ministers 
almost unanimously agreed to free their slaves, provided 
that the laws of the state in which they resided permitted 
emancipation. Those who refused to free their slaves were 
to forfeit their ministerial standing. Where state laws did 
not allow manumission, the slaves were to be paid for their 
labor, and at the owner’s death were to be left to some 
“person or persons, or the society, in trust, to bring about 
their liberty.”1* By such a provision the Methodist Church 
might have become a slaveholding denomination. 

Leaders of Methodism very early came to the parting 
of the ways. Anti-slavery sermons, rules and petitions 
caused the pro-slavery group to refuse Methodists per- 
mission to impart religious instruction to slaves. It was 
apparent that something must be done immediately or the 
work of the Church would be greatly limited. The situation 
was all the more serious because most Church members lived 
in slaveholding states. Three paths were open to Asbury: 
and his contemporaries. First, they might yield completely 
to the pro-slavery party in the Church. To such a policy 
probably most of the ministers were opposed. Second, they 
might hold steadfastly to their original anti-slavery position. 
If they did it was evident that the Church would become a 
sectional institution’® Or, they could compromise their 
principles so as to retain slaveholders in the Church and 
yet oppose slavery in those states in which manumission 
was not forbidden. When this attitude towards slavery 
was once taken, it was inevitable that still greater conces- 
sions would be made to conciliate southern slaveholders. 
For good or ill, Methodist leaders made the momentous 
decision to compromise with a known evil. 

To properly understand the attitude and action of early 
Methodist ministers it should be borne in mind that the 
attention of Church leaders of that day was fixed upon 
spiritual and “other-worldy” interests rather than upon the 
evils of this life. Religion was individual rather than social. 
If the social ills could be remedied without endangering 
what was considered the first duty of ministers and Church, 


16 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


it was well; if there seemed to be a conflict of interests, 
the souls of men were to be saved even though freedom of 
their bodies were sacrificed in the process. These ministers 
were the product of the age in which they lived and re- 
mained in perfect harmony with current opinion. Inwardly, 
they undoubtedly rebelled against the existence in the 
Church of an evil so repugnant to them, but in the crises 
which they faced they succumbed to the spirit of com- 
promise. Finally, they became the very incarnation of that 
spirit when they dealt with the slavery issue. 

When Thomas Coke found that his opposition, and that of 
the Church, to slavery caused the people to turn from the 
Methodists, he began to suit his addresses and sermons to 
the wishes of his hearers. While in Virginia he wrote: 
“Here I bore a public testimony against Slavery, and have 
found out a method of delivering it without ‘causing a 
tumult: and that is, by first addressing the Negroes in a 
very pathetic manner on the Duty of Servants to Masters; 
and then the Whites will receive quietly what I have to 
say.” By 1787 his ideas had undergone a still further 
modification, for he confessed that, while he was probably 
right in his condemnations of slavery, he showed lack of 
judgment “to deliver them from the pulpit.27 It was 
subsequent to this decision that he visited Richmond. While 
many feared for his life because of his former attitude 
towards slavery, the governor allowed him to speak in the 
Court-house and the incident passed off without any dis- 
turbance. Coke declared that he was “a plain blunt man, 
that goes directly on,’’28 but it is wholly improbable that he 
delivered an abolition sermon on this occasion. 

For twenty years after Coke made his discovery, Asbury 
continued his stubborn opposition to slavery. But in 1807 
he completely changed the content of his public addresses 
to slaves and their owners. To slaves he insisted that they 
should obey their masters “with fear and trembling” “as 
unto Christ”; then masters listened quietly to messages 
intended especially for them. As a result of this method, 
some twenty whites and as many slaves were converted in 
a single meeting.!® 

Annual and general conferences prior to 1831 illustrate 
still more fully and conclusively the tendency of the Church 
to compromise their principles in answer to protests by 


Compromising Precedents 17 


slaveholders. So completely did ministers come to share 
the opinions of slaveholders that the former might, with 
justice, be charged with being pro-slavery advocates. But 
the fact is that they compromised their principles with evi- 
dent reluctance and only gradually came to support the 
pro-slavery party. 

As has been stated in the previous chapter, the conference 
of 1780 forbade elders to hold slaves. But no provision 
was made for the punishment of local preachers or laymen 
who refused to follow the leadership of ordained min- 
isters.2° Weak and ineffective as these regulations were, 
they were nullified by the Virginia conference which re- 
fused to be governed by them, since they believed they were 
“calculated to irritate the minds of the people, and by no 
means convince them of their errors.”*1 Because this annual 
conference refused to obey the General Conference, further 
concessions were made to slaveholders. Anti-slavery rules 
were to be enforced only in states which permitted manu- 
mission of slaves, and, according to the General Conference 
action in 1783 local preachers were to be given another year 
to free their slaves. If they refused they were to be 
expelled.2* The rules of 1784 were still more drastic, but 
while local preachers in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and 
Maryland were to be suspended immediately for non-com- 
pliance, those in Virginia were given another year to com- 
plete manumission.”% 

When the Methodist Episcopal Church was organized in 
1784, rules were adopted which, if enforced, would have 
destroyed slavery within the denomination. But while slave- 
holders in other states were given one year to obey the 
rule, those in Virginia were allowed double that period. 
Further, the incisiveness of the rules was almost entirely 
destroyed by the provision that they were “to affect the 
members of our society no further than as they are con- 
sistent with the laws of the States in which they reside.’”* 
It was soon apparent that the new rules — even those pro- 
viding for gradual emancipation— were impracticable. In 
annual conferences held within six months after the 
Christmas Conference of 1784 the rules on slavery were 
suspended “till the deliberation of a future conference,” 
at which time all members were to be given the same period 
to consider their future relation to slavery. At the expira- 


18 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


tion of the period agreed upon, the rule against slavery 
was to be enforced.2> The reason for the action of these 
conferences is explained by Coke, June 1, 1785, just before 
he sailed to England: “We thought it prudent to suspend 
the minute concerning Slavery, on account of the great 
opposition that had been given it, our work being in too 
infantile a state to push things to extremity.”°° 

In the Discipline of 1792 nothing remained of the section 
on slavery except a general denunciation of the evil. Since 
there was no penalty for those who violated the ideals of 
the Church, the condemnation was an idle thunderbolt. So 
reactionary was this General Conference that O’Kelley, who 
had made an unsuccessful attempt to restrict the power 
of bishops, unfolded to M’Kendree his plans for a secession 
from the Methodists and the organization of “a republican, 
. no slavery glorious Church!" 

In 1796 the General Conference instructed annual con- 
ferences to enforce the rules on slavery.28 Obviously, 
conferences composed of ministers favorable to slaveholders 
would not be active in such work. By 1800 the rule was con- 
sidered so worthless that three proposals were submitted, all 
of them having as their ultimate purpose the destruction of 
slavery in the Methodist Episcopal Church. One member sug- 
gested that no slaveholder should be admitted into the mem- 
bership of the Church. Another moved that all negro children 
belonging to Methodists and born after July 4, 1800 should 
be emancipated at certain ages to be agreed upon. A third 
proposed that every slaveholding member of the Church 
should free all his slaves, the quarterly conference to decide 
the length of time each slave should serve, unless the laws 
of the state expressly prohibited emancipation.?® The fact 
that they were all vetoed by the Conference is conclusive 
evidence that the Church had no intention of abolishing 
slavery among members who desired to continue the prac- 
tice. The further fact that travelling preachers were re- 
quired to free their slaves only when it was “practicable” 
is additional proof that opposition to state laws was not 
intended.*° 

The spirit of compromise continued to gain ground in 
1804. By motion of Freeborn Garrettson, who had formerly 
been so outspoken against slavery,*! the subject was left to 
the three bishops to “form a section to suit the southern and 


Compromising Precedents 19 


northern states as they in their wisdom may think best.’ 
Asbury refused to serve and the question was therefore left 
to the Conference for decision.*”. After discussion, the prob- 
lem was referred to a committee of seven — one from each 
conference**— who drew up a report in conformity with 
Garrettson’s resolution.3+ In addition, two more important 
sections were made a part of the report. The first read: 
“The members of our societies in the States of North Caro- 
lina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee, shall be ex- 
empted from the operation of the above rules.” To further 
re-assure slaveholders, they required “preachers, from time 
to time, as occasion served, (to) admonish and exhort all 
slaves to render due respect and obedience to the commands 
and interests of their respective masters.” ?4 

The action of the General Conference of 1808 was a re- 
flection of the surrender made by’ Asbury in 1807.35 It is 
true that the attempt to take from the quarterly conferences 
the responsibility for deciding how long a slave should serve 
in those states permitting such action ended in failure. Fur- 
ther, a motion to remove the entire section from the Discip- 
line was defeated. The articles in regard to the great evil 
of slavery; the caution which should be exercised in ad- 
mitting slaveholders to official positions; and the require- 
ment that slaveholders, before they became officials in the 
Church, should manumit their slaves, if the state laws per- 
mitted, were retained. Ministers were no longer required 
to urge slaves to be obedient to their masters, but masters 
were not required to free their slaves. By article three 
annual conferences were authorized “to form their own 
regulations relative to buying and selling slaves’’.*® 

That the sentiment in favor of comprise was practically 
unanimous among Church leaders seems to be established 
beyond cavil when we read in the Journal that it was “moved 
trom the chair that there be one thousand forms of discip- 
line prepared for the use of the South Carolina Conference 
in which the section and rule on slavery be left out. 
Carried.’’?? Lee says that the motion must have been made by 
Asbury,38 but the evidence is not clear. Some light is thrown 
on the source of the General Conference resolution by noting 
the attitude of Asbury and M’Kendree towards anti-slavery 
legislation in the Tennessee conference of 1808. When they 
were requested to give their opinions in writing on the sub- 


20 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


ject of slavery, Bishop Asbury read a paper in which he sug- 
gested caution and moderation and discouraged any legislation 
relative to slavery at that time. His presentation of the 
conservative viewpoint was received with “dissatisfaction ; 
indeed, it is said that ‘the audience hissed him’.”8® When 
the conference expressed a preference for M’Kendree’s 
anti-slavery principles, Asbury answered with a smile and 
tore up his paper.39 

Subsequent to the Tennessee conference, Asbury spoke 
to large numbers of whites and blacks in Tennessee and 
met with an encouraging response.*° But when he returned 
to North Carolina and Virginia, the reception by the people 
was far from cordial.44 Here, the expurgated edition of the 
Discipline was not in circulation and the effect on the 
Church gave Asbury much concern. When Asbury met 
with the Virginia conference he found a deplorable situa- 
tion. Compared with three thousand new members in 
southern states and an equal number in the West, an increase 
of three hundred in Virginia churches seemed meagre in- 
deed. Although some allowance could be made for losses 
by removal to the new country, the explanation was still 
unsatisfactory. Asbury declared: “We are defrauded of 
great numbers by the pains that are taken to keep the blacks 
from us — their masters are afraid of the influence of our 
principles”. Having located the chief reason for the con- 
fusion of the Church, Asbury asked himself: “Would not 
amelioration in the condition and treatment of slaves 
have produced more practical good to the poor Africans 
than an attempt at their emancipation?’ He declared that 
the state of society did not allow manumission of slaves; 
that Methodists were the only ones interested in the welfare 
of slaves; and that masters would not permit slaves to listen 
to anti-slavery preachers. Face to face with this condition, 
Asbury asked: “What is the personal liberty of the African 
which he may abuse, to the salvation of his soul—how 
may it be compared?’#* Writing of this conference, Lee 
asserts: “Their present lameness, therefore, and their ina- 
bility to reach, with the comforts of religion, the poor slave, 
was the providential exposition and punishment of their 
unwise and gratuitous legislation upon the subject.’#% 

At the opening of the General Conference of 1812 As- 
bury desired that few new rules should be added to the 


Pe 


Compromising Precedents 21 


Discipline.** So far as slavery was concerned his wishes 
were followed. The only mention of slavery in the Journals 
of this session is a request of D. Young of the Western 
Conference that the Conference “inquire into the nature 
and moral tendency of slavery”, but the motion was tabled 
and never considered.4® Another source declares that the 
section on slavery was to be enforced where its provisions 
did not conflict with the civil law, unless it was considered 
a case of “mercy or necessity.’’46 Elliot says that the third 
article was introduced by an explanatory clause, specifically 
stating that each annual conference was authorized to make 
its own provisions on the subject of slavery because “the 
laws of some of the states do not admit of emancipating 
of slaves, without a special act of the legislature.” 47 

In the previous chapter, Learner Blackman was cited as 
a leader of the anti-slavery faction of Tennessee conference 
in 1812.48 By the following year, however, he had joined 
the opposition. When a local preacher appealed from the 
decision of his quarterly conference, Blackman supported 
him. Blackman declared that the General Rule did not 
apply in this case; that it was inconsistent to receive and 
retain members who owned slaves, and exclude those 
who bought them; that this preacher had been controlled by 
the most humane feelings; and that the Nashville quarterly 
conference had, in other cases, considered it no more evil 
for ministers to hold slaves than for members to do so. He 
insisted that great harm had already been done by this 
meddling with people’s legal and private affairs; and that, 
since he could see no moral wrong in the transaction, if the 
slave were treated humanely, he would refuse to conform 
to the decision of the conference. Bishop M’Kendree re- 
buked Blackman and reminded him that he “ought to keep 
the rule or change it.’’4? It is true that the conference sup- 
ported the quarterly conference rather than Blackman, but 
this increasing opposition was a constant source of trouble 
for the anti-slavery party.49 

Reference has been made to radical action taken in Ten- 
nessee conference in 1815, relative to buying and selling 
slaves.5° But this was only an attempt to interpret existing 
rules. That these rules were unsatisfactory to the majority 
of the conference there is no doubt. On motion of Peter 
Cartwright, a committee of five was appointed to draft rules 


2 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


on buying and selling slaves. The report, which was adopted, 
affirmed their belief that slavery was a moral evil, but de- 
clared that, since some states did not permit emancipation 
except by special act of the legislatures, they could not compel 
their members to liberate their slaves. Although they ad- 
mitted that it was impossible to make regulations to meet 
every situation, they proposed two rules as the judgment of 
the conference. First, mercenary buying or selling of slaves 
was prohibited, but this did not apply to any person who 
bought or sold slaves in order to keep members of families 
together. Secondly, no person was éligible to the office of 
deacon unless he assured officials of the conference “senti- 
mentally, in person or by letter, that he disapproves of slavery 
and declares his willingness and intention to execute, when- 
ever it be practicable, a legal emancipation of such slave or 
slaves, conformably to the laws of the State in which he 
lives.””51 

The delegates to the General Conference of 1816 were 
much disturbed by the slavery question. A memorial on 
slavery from some Methodists on Staunton Circuit, Virginia, 
was referred to a select committee of nine. The committee 
reported that they had seriously considered the subject and 
were of the opinion that, “under present existing circum- 
stances in relation to slavery, little can be done to abolish 
a practice so contrary to the principles of moral justice. 
They are sorry to say that the evil appears to be past remedy ; 
and they are led to deplore the destructive consequences 
which have already accrued, and are yet likely to result 
therefrom.” They declared that laws of southern and west- 
ern states forbade emancipation, and that changing civil laws 
was not within the province of the General Conference.5? 

The demoralization of the anti-slavery forces is no more 
clearly seen than in the Tennessee conference of 1816.53 
Hardy M. Cryer had been required by the preceding con- 
ference to endeavor to emancipate his slaves, and a report 
was to be made to the conference. He declared that he 
could not succeed in the endeavor, and the conference ap- 
proved his report. He then stated that, within the year, 
he had bought another slave. An inquiry was immediately 
made into this new case. The presiding officer, Bishop Rob- 
erts, decided that the rule had not been violated. Cryer’s char- 
acter was then passed and he was elected elder. All this 


Compronusing Precedents 23 


was accomplished apparently with little debate and less invest- 
igation.®+ In fact, so discouraged were the anti-slavery fac- 
tion that several ministers migrated to Ohio during this and 
succeeding years. 

As a result of this migration, the conservative and pro- 
slavery faction gained control of the conference. This fact 
is undoubtedly responsible for the action in 1818, by which 
all previous rules were repealed and the following resolution 
adopted: “Resolved, That we receive the printed rule on 
Slavery, in the form of Discipline as full and sufficient on 
that subject.”55 Since the General Conference of 1816 em- 
powered annual conferences to make and enforce rules on 
slavery, the resolution could only mean that nothing preju- 
dicial to slaveholding would be done in Tennessee conference. 
While attempts were made to enforce previous anti-slavery 
legislation, radicalism in Tennessee and Kentucky was fight- 
ing a losing battle. After 1820 the extreme anti-slavery group 
was almost completely robbed of power. 

The Ohio conference was decidedly anti-slavery in 1812.56 
But in succeeding years opposition to slavery gradually de- 
clined. In 1813, the report on slavery was carried over 
until 1814,5% when it was decided to retain the previous 
regulations.°8 But is is significant that, after 1812, no trial, 
involving anyone’s relation to slavery, was brought before 
this conference. In 1817, “the conference rescinded their 
written rules on the buying and selling slaves.”°9 

During the decade following 1820, the tendency of Meth- 
odism was against any action which would utterly destroy 
slaveholding by Church members. The General Conference 
of 1820 prescribed no penalty for the holding of slaves by 
members, and the rule, as before, was so worded that it 
had little or no effect in sections where slaveholding was 
most extensive.6® The refusal of General and annual con- 
ferences to enact any legislation which interfered with slave- 
holding became more and more noticeable.6! One candidate 
was refused ordination by Virginia conference in 1825 “for 
disaffection to our government,” the reason for the refusal 
being an attack upon slavery.62 In 1828 an attempt was 
made by members of the General Conference to pass a 
resolution, by which slaveholders who treated their slaves 
inhumanely, either by refusing them proper care or separat- 
ing, by means of purchase or sale, members of families, 


24 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


should be brought to trial and treated as in cases of immor- 
ality. But the resolution was tabled and never considered.®% 

While various Church publications printed articles which 
were anti-slavery in tone,®4 it is to be noted that no writer 
contended for immediate, unconditional emancipation. It is 
true that they condemned the African slave trade, but that 
traffic was under the ban of the law. The domestic slave 
trade was protected by state and national laws, and with 
slavery thus protected Methodist leaders did not interfere. 
There is no shred of evidence to show that any Methodist 
conference ever condemned — or supported — the Missouri 
Compromise in 1820. 

The unwillingness of influential preachers to condemn 
slavery may be shown by two illustrations. Cartwright 
wrote: I believe, from more than twenty years’ experience as 
a travelling preacher in slave states, that the most successful 
way to ameliorate the condition of the slaves, and Christian- 
ize them and finally secure their freedom, is to treat their 
owners kindly, and not to meddle politically with slavery.” ®® 
The editor of the Christian Advocate and Journal, in an 
article entitled “Slavery”, said: “The question submitted to 
us by ‘A Female Member of the Methodist Episcopal Church’, 
on the subject of slavery, involves considerations too weighty 
for us to decide upon. We are not sufficiently acquainted 
with local circumstanceés and other peculiarities in this case, to 
enable us to judge for another. All we can say is, in the 
language of the apostle, ‘If thou mayest be free, use it 
rather.’’’®® It seems impossible that any slaveholder would 
ever cancel his subscription through fear that this editor was 
attempting to organize a slave insurrection ! 

A review of the first half century of legislation by the 
Methodist Episcopal Church shows that, while many leaders 
were personally opposed to slavery, they immediately com- 
promised their principles that the Church might grow and the 
slaves be evangelized. It has been demonstrated that con- 
ences — both General and annual — took different attitudes 
on the question of slavery. Sometimes they reversed their 
own action in the same session. With such a bewildering 
diversity of legislation, it was possible for their successors 
to prove that the Church was opposed to slavery and slave- 
holders; and also that it had compromised on the “sum of 
all villanies.” 


Age 


37. 
38. 


Compromsing Precedents 25 


Supra, pp. 1-3. 

Asbury, Journal, Volume IIl., pp. 8-9; December 21, 1800. 

Ibid., p. 215; February 5, 1807. 

He became a bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church and later 
the first bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. It 
was over Andrew that the notable contest of 1844 was waged. 
That is, he was held under a pump while water was pumped 
into his face. 

Andrew, Rise and Progress of Methodism in Charleston, South 
Carolina (The Methodist Magazine and Quarterly Review, Volume 
XIl.—New Series, Volume I.—1830, pp. 21-2.) 

Asbury, Journal, Volume II., p. 273; December 24, 1796. 

Ibid., Volume III., pp. 13-14; January 30, 1801. 

Asbury, Journal, Volume II., p. 97; March 13, 1791. 


. Norwood, Schism in the Methodist Church, p. 15, footnote 28. 


Townsend, New History of Methodism, Volume L., p. 272. 


. Virginia Sermon Pamphlets, Volume 2—An Address to the People 


of the County of Accomac, by George P. Scarburgh and fifteen 
others. 


. Southern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., p. 9, col. 1; June 27, 


1845. Cf. South-Western Christian Advocate, Volume IX., No. 7, 
col. 1; December 138, 1844. 


. Asbury, Journal, Volume II., pp. 208-9. 
. Even in the North it is to be doubted whether anti-slavery prin- 


ciples would have been accepted with any enthusiasm at this time. 


. Coke, Journal, Volume 'I., p. 37 

H,, D.'.69. 

said. pp, 70-71, 

. Asbury, Journal, Volume IIlI., p. 215; February 4, 1807. 

. Eddy, Journal, p. 255. Cf. Elliott, The Great Secession, pp. 31-2; 


Sunderland, Anti-Slavery Manual, p. 60; Armstrong, History of the 
Old Baltimore Conference, p. 48; Dixon, Methodism in America, 
p. 393; Emory, History of the Discipline, p. 15. 


. Elliott, The Great Secession, pp. 31-2; Armstrong, History of the 


Old Baltimore Conference, p. 48. 


. Eddy, Journal, p. 255. Cf. HEmory, History of the Discipline, p. 19- 
. Eddy, Journal, p. 258. See also, Emory, History of the Discipline, 


21 


D211, 
. Elliott, The Great Secession, pp. 33-4. Cf. Long, Pictures of 


Slavery in Church and State, pp. 27-9. 


. Elliott, The Great Secession, p. 35. See also, Eddy, Journal, p. 


256; and Lee, Life and Times of Jesse Lee, p. 160. 


. Coke, Journal, Volume I., p. 46. 
. Paine, Life and Times of Bishop M’Kendres, Volume I., p. 139. 
. Journals of the General Conference, Volume I., pp. 22-3 (1796). 


Cf. Strickland, Life and Times of Francis Asbury, pp. 302-3 


. Journals of the General Conference, Volume I. pp. 40-41 (1800). 
. Ibid., p. 44. Cf Elliott, The Great Secession, p. 39; and Emory 


History of the Discipline, pp. 375-6. 
Supra, p. 1. 


. Journals of the General Conference, Volume I., p. 60 (1804). 
. Ibid., p. 61 (1804). 
. Ibid., pp. 62-3. Cf. Shipp, History of Methodism in South Caro- 


lina, p. 474: and Elliott, The Great Secession, p. 40. 


. Supra, p. 16. 
. Journals of the General Conference, Volume I., p. 93 (1808). See 


also, Elliott, The Great Secession, p. 41. Blliott does a rather 
skillful piece of work in his attempt to gloss over the action of 
the General Conference. The Journals furnish the needed corrective. 
Journals of the General Conference, Volume I., p. 93 (1808). 

He contends that the motion must have been made by Asbury, 
since M’ Kendree had never been south in a ministerial capacity, 
except in Virginia, and was therefore unfamiliar with that section; 
while Asbury, who had been in the South for the previous twenty- 
three years, was fully acquainted with the slavery situation. (Lee, 
Life and Times of Jesse Lee, pp. 444-5). But Bishop Paine, the 
biographer of M’Kendree, maintains that the latter was born and 
reared in the midst of slavery, and that his parents and nearest 
kindred were slaveholders (Paine, Life and Times of Bishop M’Ken- 
Gree, Volume I., pp. 212-15). It is to be noted that a semi-official 


26 


39. 


Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


statement of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, attributes the 
motion to Asbury (Myers, The Disruption of the M, H. Church, 
p. 83). Whatever decision may be rendered on this incident, it 
is perfectly clear that the Conference: was determined that the 
evil of slavery should not disrupt the Church or impede its work 
in redeeming the souls of men, even though their bodies were left 
in subjection (Armstrong, The Old Baltimore Conference, pp. 157-8). 
After such far-reaching compromises it is not strange that Asbury 
recorded nothing in his Journal regarding the action of the General 
Conference on slavery (Asbury, Journal, Volume [III., pp. 243-4; 
May, 1808) 

Paine, Life and Times of Bishop M’Kendree, Volume I., p. 216. 
From the action of these two bishops at the Tennessee conference 
I incline to the opinion that Asbury rather than M’Kendree made 
the motion in General Conference. 


. Asbury, Journal, Volume IIL, p. 254; November 21, 1808. — 
USED igo oep 25:63 February if 1809. Cf. Paine, Life and Times of 


Bishop M’Kendree, Volume I., pp. 219-20. 


. Asbury, Journal, Volume III, pp. 257-8; February, 1809. 
. Lee, Life and Times of Jesse Lee, p. 460. 
. Asbury, Journal, Volume III., p. 326; May 1, 1812. The General 


Conference was held in New York. 


. Journals of the General Conference, Volume I., p. 121 (1812). 
. Armstrong, The Old Baltimore Conference, p. 166. 
. Elliott, The Great Secession, p. 41. Cf. Henckle, The Life of 


Henry Bidleman Bascom, p. 115. 


OUD as © Dat 6: 

. Paine, Life and Times of Bishop M’Kendree, Volume L, pp. 288-9. 
) Supra, pp. 6-7. 

. McFerrin, Methodism in Tennessee, Volume II., pp. 401-2. Price 


(The Holston Methodism, pp. 215-16) affirms that, for the most part, 
all provisions for eradicating slavery in the Church remained a 
dead letter, but that this action was a disturbing element among 
the ministers. 


. Journals of the General Conference, Volume I., pp. 139, 169-70 (1816). 
. Slaves had to be freed if it were ‘‘expedient.” 
. McFerrin, Methodism in Tennessee, Volume II., pp. 461-8. Cart- 


wright (Autobiography, pp. 156-7) proves conclusively that radi- 
ecalism was not triumphant in Tennessee conference in 1816. ‘‘No 
question gave us much trouble at that time. It is true slavery was 
a troublesome matter to legislate on; but the one-eyed creature 
called Rabid Abolitionism had, at that time, been just born, and 
had but just cut its teeth, and could not bite hard; and it is a 
notorious fact that all the preachers from the slaveholding states 
denounced slavery as a moral evil . 


. McFerrin, Methodism in Tennessee, ey III., pp. 19-20. 


PDUs. Doe ks 
. Sweet, Circuit-rider Days along the Ohio, p. 117. 
PAW ono RIN ap et Ae 


. Ibid., p. 158. More than a quarter of a century was to elapse 


before the Ohio conference took action against slavery 


. Armstrong, The Old Baltimore Conference, p. 300, “Cf. Elliott, 


The Great Secession, p. 42. 


. Within the writer’s knowledge there is no evidence to show that 


any northern annual conference except the Ohio passed a resolu- 
tion against slavery prior to 1835. 


. Bennett, Memorials of Methodism in Virginia, p. 709. 

: Journals of the General Conference, Volume I., pp. 337-57 (1828). 
. Supra, pp. 8-9. 

. Cartwright, Autobiography, p. 422. 

. Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume V,, p. 14, col. 5; September 


24, 1830. 





CHAD RoLul 


PHILANTHROPIC PRECEDENTS 


In preceding chapters we have considered the attitude of 
Methodist leaders and the legislation of various conferences 
on slavery. The effect which Methodist rules had on slave- 
holders was especially emphasized. Further, it was shown 
that the reaction of slaveholders to anti-slavery legislation 
of the Church produced very noticeable changes in the rules 
adopted by official conferences. 

During the period from 1780 to 1831 another question 
pressed for an answer: namely, “What disposition shall be 
made of the negro?’ Three solutions were proposed. The 
first was that slaves should be freed and allowed to remain 
in the state in which they were then living or remove to an- 
other state. The second suggestion was that the negroes 
remain slaves, but that the Church do everything possible, 
short of emancipation, to ameliorate the condition of slaves. 
The third, and perhaps the most popular of all, was that 
slaves should be freed, on condition that they become colon- 
ists in Africa. 

The first demand of Methodist leaders was that slaves 
should be freed, either immediately or gradually. Some of the 
early arguments and sermons of Asbury and Coke can 
mean nothing else than that they believed emancipation 
to be the only true and just solution of this problem. Fol- 
lowers of Asbury, such as Willis and Gruber,! were equally 
determined in their efforts to secure manumission of slaves. 
Indeed, if they had been made a half century later, their 
statements would have been considered incendiary in char- 
acter. 

The natural result was that slaveholders refused to belong 
to a Church whose leaders harbored and furthered anti- 
slavery principles, and Methodist ministers were denied free 
access to the slave population. At Georgetown, South Ca- 
rolina, Asbury records that, while there were a hundred 
negro members, there were only seven or eight white 


27 


28 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


Methodists, “our doctrine being too close, and our discipline 
too strict.”2 As has been shown,? many laws were passed 
and almost insurmountable obstacles placed in the path of 
the Church which attempted to destroy slavery. The work 
of Methodists among the slaves threatened to end in failure. 
It rernained for ecclesiastical leaders to try conciliation and 
amelioration where uncompromising radicalism had been 
demonstrated a failure. 

It was in 1778 that Asbury wrote relative to emancipat*on- 
ists and slaves: “But there is cause to presume, that som¢ are 
more intent on promoting the freedom of their bodies, than 
the freedom of their souls; without which they must be 
the vassals of Satan in eternal fire.”* Most of the Methodist 
legislation on this phase of the question seems to have been 
passed for the purpose, first of all, to save the souls of 
slaves, without regard to the state of their bodies. In 1780, 
when the first rules relative to slavery were passed, due 
regard was shown for the interests of both slaves and their 
owners. They determined that the assistant pastor should 
“meet the colored people himself, and appoint as his helpers, 
in his absence, proper white persons, and not permit them 
to stay late, and meet by themselves.”® Four years later, 
the Christmas conference specifically ordered that slaves 
should receive religious instruction. In 1785 ministers were 
required to “leave nothing undone for the spiritual benefit 
and salvation” of slaves. Societies were to be organized 
among those slaves who seemed most religious.?7 In 1790, 
provision was made for the teaching of “learning and piety” 
to servants. Sunday schools were to be organized for all 
negroes who would attend and who showed ability to learn.? 
Ins 1824 the General Conference required all ministers to 
urge upon their members the necessity of teaching slaves to 
read the Bible and of permitting them to attend Church 
services.® 

The responsibilty of the Church for the salvation of 
slaves was clearly recognized. The Rev. Stephen Olin deliv- 
ered an address before the Missionary Society of South Caro- 
lina conference in January, 1824, in which he declared: “Our 
forefathers, together with a rich inheritance of moral and 
political advantages, have left to our sympathies and our 
piety, the . . . charge of an exotic population, unrighteously 
introduced amongst us, whose existence is the worst foe 





Philanthropic Precedents 29 


to our prosperity, and whose rapid multiplication looks, with 
a threatening aspect upon the perpetuity of our happy insti- 
tutions.” He declared that much was being done for the 
negroes. “Religion freely admits them to her churches, her 
instructions, and her sacraments.’® The report of the same 
society for this year substantiated Olin’s statement. ‘That 
we hold in the membership of the Church within our Con- 
ference, thirteen thousand negroes, will be admitted as evi- 
dence that they are not forgotten among the multitudes whom 
we serve.” The only boon they asked was “a free, unsus- 
pected, universal access to them.’’?° 

Not only did the Methodist Church permit negroes to 
become members but they were occasionally used as 
preachers. Asbury ordained a negro, probably as a local 
preacher. He was immediately charged with having ordained 
a slave. His Journal reads: “A charge had been brought 
against me for ordaining a slave, but there was no farther 
pursuit of the case when it was discovered that I was ready 
to prove his freedom; the subject of the contention was 
nearly white, and his respectable father would neither own 
nor manumit him.”!4 In 1824 the General Conference ruled 
that colored preachers and official members should have the 
same privileges as whites where the usages of the country 
did not prohibit the exercise of such privileges. If there 
were enough negro preachers to justify their organization, 
separate conferences might be formed. Negro preachers 
might be employed to travel and preach, if their services 
were judged necessary, provided that they met all the dis- 
ciplinary requirements.!? 

What was the nature of messages delivered to slaves? It 
is probable that most sermons to negroes, like those to whites, 
dealt with individual salvation from unbelief and immortality. 
But preachers carefully protected the interests of. slave- 
holders. When Coke first began to compromise on slavery 
he was able to secure the good will of masters by first insist- 
ing that slaves be obedient to their owners.% Asbury gave 
expression to the same thought when he preached from the 
text found in Ephesians vi. 5-8: “Servants, be obedient to 
them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear 
and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ, 
doing the will of God from the heart; with good will doing 
service, as to the Lord, and not to men; knowing that what- 


30 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


soever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive 
of the Lord, whether he be bound or free.”!4 In 1804 
the sentiment of Coke and Asbury was embodied in the law 
of the Church. The rule read: “Let our preachers, from 
time to time, as occasion serves, admonish and exhort all 
slaves to render due respect to the commands and interests 
of their respective masters.”45 


Church leaders were much gratified over the smallest evi- 
dences of success among the negroes. Asbury even noted 
the case of an old negress who was freed by her master 
“because she had too much religion for him.?® Without 
doubt, Asbury was overjoyed at the news of wonderful re- 
vivals in Kentucky and the South, where between four and 
five thousand negroes were received into the membership of 
various churches.!* Especially did he rejoice when the West 
and the South each showed a gain of three thousand new 
members.1® In 1820 it was stated that “many of the people ~ 
of colour” had joined the Methodist societies and that many 
more had “been awakened and converted to God, but from a 
variety of causes, could not join (the) society.”!® 


While the anti-slavery legislation of the Church continued 
to hamper the Methodist work among the slaves, yet as a 
result of the greater consideration given to their needs and 
the desires of slaveholders, the number of negro Methodists 
steadily increased. In 1787 the number of negro Methodists 
was 3,893; by 1790 it had reached 11,682.79 In the decade 
from 1793 to 1803 about five thousand more were received 
as members — slightly more than the increase for the period 
1790 to 1793. Of these five thousand, almost four thousand 
were added during 1802 and 1803.74 By 1817 negroes in 
the Methodist Church numbered over 43,000.22 During the 
succeeding six years only about 1500 more became mem- 
bers.22 In 1830 the records showed that, of the total 
membership of 471,791, 69,230 were negroes.*4 

Negro Methodists were largely in the South. In 1797, 
only 588 negro members were north of Mason and Dixon’s 
line, and only 99 negro Methodists were west of the Appal- 
achian mountains.2° Twenty years later there were almost 
2400 in the West, and 1581 in the Genessee, New York and 
New England conferences.?? In 1830, the records show that, 
of the negro Methodists, New England conferences had 


Philanthropic Precedents 31 


only 263, while the Philadelphia, Baltimore, Virginia, South 
Carolina and Georgia conference had 52,975.24 It is obvious 
that evangelization of negroes was confined largely to the 
older slaveholding states, and that it was being accomplished 
by preachers who had the confidence of the planters. That 
the methods used had the approval of conservatives is evi- 
denced by the statement of Cartwright: “Let the owners | 
see and know that your whole mission is the salvation of 
the slaves as well as their owners, and that you have not 
established any underground railroad, and that it is not your 
mission to abduct their slaves. In this way more is to be 
done for the final extirpation of American slavery than all _ 
others put together for these ultraists breathe nothing but 
death and slaughter.”°° 

The third method by which early Methodists sought to 
improve the condition of slaves was the colonization in Africa 
of such as owners might be induced to set free. “The 
National Colonization Society of America’*? had the official 
endorsement of the Methodist Episcopal Church. In 1824, 
the General Conference received a communication from the 
Society, but nothing seems to have been done at that time.?® 
But four years later, the General Conference heartily ap- 
proved the work of the Colonization Society because an 
opportunity would thereby be given for missionary work in 
Africa.“ The Baltimore and Virginia conferences in the 
South,®° and the New York conference in the North,*4 
adopted resolutions in favor of colonizing freedmen. In 
Tennessee conference, colonization and emancipation so- 
cieties were formed to counteract the work of radicals.*? 

Methodist publications also indicated that colonizationists 
had the support of the Church. Zion's Herald urged New 
Englanders not to condemn southerners for holding slaves, 
and called attention to the fact that many early New England 
fortunes had been accumulated through the slave trade. It 
was also pointed out that New Englanders had attempted to 
enslave the Indians but had failed because the latter pre- 
ferred death to slavery. Thus, not from choice, but from 
necessity, they had surrendered the idea of enslaving the 
indigenous population. It was further maintained that the 
Colonization Society did not touch the negro as a slave but 
only as a freedman. It was believed that American negroes 


32 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


would be able to establish a free government in Africa, and 
that they could evangelize the natives.** 

The opinion that slaves in this country and the natives of 
Africa would both be benefitted by the work of the Coloniza- 
tion Society was omnipresent in the minds of many writers of 
that period. Lewis Garrett of Tennessee conference declared 
that, although much was being done to enlighten the people 
in foreign lands, very little was being accomplished in behalf 
of ignorant and degraded slaves of America, except the 
establishment of a few Sunday Schools. The Colonization 
Society seemed to be very important in furthering the inter- 
ests of slaves.24 In 1830, the New York Colonization 
Society declared that there were about fifteen hundred freed- 
men in Liberia,?5 and added: “The advantages which may 
be expected to result to our own country, from the removal 
of our free coloured population, are too obvious to require 
comment.”96 

Official papers also encouraged the work of the Society. 
_Muinisters were urged to carry out the program of Methodism 
and the Society in behalf of the freedmen.?* The Society’s 
statements were published, in which officers told of forward- 
ing slaves to Liberia,®°& of the appointment of an educated 
negro as superintendent of Liberia schools,®® and of an article 
in the “African Repository”, addressed to the women of the 
United States, in behalf of these schools.*° Addresses to 
the free colored population, in which an attempt was made 
to get them to become colonists in Africa,*! accounts of the 
manumission of many slaves in the South for the purpose 
of colonizing them,* and statements relative to the Society’s 
advancement,** were also given considerable space. The 
ninth report of the Vermont Colonization Society, dated 
October 17, 1828, was printed, together with the news of 
the organization of new societies and the raising of money 
with which to send freedmen to Africa.44 By 1829 it was 
reported that eleven commonwealths had state colonization 
societies.* 

Subscriptions for sending negroes to Africa seem to have 
been very gratifying to colonizationists and Methodist edi- 
tors. A proposal was made to raise $700,000 annually to 
remove freedmen to Africa, since southerners were opposed 
to freeing slaves and permitting them to remain in the 
South.4¢ The result was far short of the desired amount but 





Philanthropic Precedents 33 


progress was recorded. An audience in New York contrib- 
uted over $200,4* while Gerritt Smith donated $1000.48 
Thirty-nine people in New York subscribed thirty dollars 
each, the latter sum being estimated as the cost of sending 
one negro to Africa.*® In 1830 the receipts of the Coloniza- 
tion Society amounted to $27,209.°° 

That Methodist leaders were in earnest in their advocacy 
of the colonization movement seems apparent.. One writer, 
who commended the editor of Zion’s Herald for his interest 
in the transportation of freedmen, asked: “Why is it, that 
there ts, at this time, in these United States, ONE MILLION 
and a HALF of our fellow beings held in abject slavery — 
by Americans contrary to the express declaration of the inde- 
pendence of these United Colonies, and by Christians — con- 
trary to the spirit and design of the gospel of the Son of 
God.”*! Colonization would, of course, solve the problem. 

The author of the above quotation might easily become a 
follower of Garrison. But that most Methodists entertained 
no radical anti-slavery views was due primarily to the fact 
that the negro was considered undesirable in northern as 
well as. southern states. Cincinnati required free colored 
people to give bonds if they continued to live in the city. So 
harshly were negroes treated that an appeal for funds was 
made so that these people might be sent to Canada.®2 The 
negro colony of about seven hundred persons finally left 
Cincinnati and obtained a grant of 25,000 acres of land in 
Upper Canada, where they were cordially received, and their 
children permitted to attend the public schools without 
charge.°? The editor of Methodism’s only official paper 
made no protest against this action; he was interested. pri- 
marily in ridding the country of negroes. And the editor of 
Zion's Herald proved himself at one with the South when 
he wrote: “Let no one for a moment imagine that the revolt 
of the oppressed will find one advocate at the north or that 
every arm will not be raised to protect the precious lives 
of our dear countrymen.’’*4 

For half a century after the first anti-slavery rules were 
adopted, Methodist leaders sought to solve the problem of 
the Church’s duty toward the slaves. Manumission as a 
practical policy proved a failure and threatened the destruc- 
tion of the Church; conservatism temporarily saved the 
denomination from division and promoted the spiritual wel- 


34 , Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


fare of the slaves. In a comparatively few instances the 
freedom of slaves was secured through the Colonization 
Society. 

It is apparent that precedents had been established by 
which advocates of any particular theory of the relation of 
the Church to slavery could prove that the “Fathers” fully 
sustained them. A study of the evidence indicates that each 
faction failed, or perhaps refused, to see the strength of 
their opponents’ position. This is especially true after 
William Lloyd Garrison issued his challenge to slaveholders 
and conservatives, in which he demanded the immediate abol- 
ition of slavery. 


Supra, p. 10, footnote 17. 

Asbury, Journal, Volume II., p. 274; December 28, 1796. 

Supra, pp. 13-14. 

Asbury, Journal, Volume I., p. 214; June 10, 1778. 

Eddy, Journal, p. 255. Cf. Elliott, The Great Secession, pp. 31-2; 

Sunderland, Anti-Slavery Manual, p. 60; Armstrong, History of 

the Old Baltimore Conference, p. 48; Dixon, Methodism in America, 

p. 393; Emory, History of the Discipline, p. 15. 

6. Elliott, The Great Secession, p. 33. Cf. Long, Pictures of Slavery 
in Church and State, pp. 27-9. 

7. Elliott, The Great Secession, p. 36. Cf. Asbury, Journal, Volume 
IL, p. 25; Harrison, The Gospel among the Slaves, p. 54 (Date 
Placed at 1787); Finley, Autobiography, p. 389 (Date placed at 
1786). There is either an error or else the same rule was passed 
in successive years. 

8. Journal of the General Conference, Volume I., p. 294 (1824). Cf. 
Clark, Life and Times of Hedding, p. 297; and Elliott, The Great 
Secession, p. 42. 

9. The Methodist Magazine, Volume VII., pp. 306-7 (1824). 

10. Ibid., p. 198. ‘“‘We know no evil to which the slave is subject, 
that may be compared with his so frequent, total destitution of the 
means of grace. We honestly believe that all the circumstances of 
his condition taken together, as they are known to us, the negro in 
the Carolinas-and Georgia, might on no temporal account, envy the 
peasant of some other Christian countries. Yea, more: we believe 
that many thousands of them are both better fed and clothed—and 
labour less—and are better attended to in sickness, than many of 
the white population of this, happiest of all countries.”’ 

11. Asbury, Journal, Volume IIlI., p. 323; February, 1812. 

12. Journals of the General Conference, Volume I., p. 294 (1824). 

is. Supra.’ -p: 16. 

14. Asbury, Journal, Volume ITI., p. 215; February 4, 1807. 

15. Journals of the General Conference, Volume I., pp. 62-3 (1804). 
Cf. Shipp, History of Methodism in South Carolina, p. 474; Elliott, 
The Great Secession, p. 40. 

16. Asbury, Journal, Volume II., p. 87; November 4, 1790. Afterwards, 
Asbury felt constrained to reprove himself for a ‘‘sudden and vio- 
lent laugh” over the story. 

17. Harrison, The Gospel among the Slaves, p. 63. 

18. Supra, p. 20. 

19. The Methodist Magazine, Volume III., p. 316 (1820). 

20. Lee, Life and Times of Jesse Lee, p. 175. j 

21. Harrison. The Gospel among the Slaves, pp. 61, 64. 

22. Methodist Magazine. Volume L., p. 75 (1818). There were 537 in Ohio 

conference, 73 in Missouri, 410 in Mississippi, 77 in Genesee con- 

ference, and 16,789 in South Carolina. 


23. Ibid., Volume VI., p. 359 (1823). This is the net increase: after 


OUR cobs pi 


26. 
27. 


Philanthropic Precedents 30 


deducting the number of those who had died, been expelled or had 
removed to another section of the country without joining the 
Church there. 


. Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume IV., p. 207, col. 2; August 


27, 1830. Cf. Ibid., Volume VI., p. 38, col. 5; November 4, 1831. 


. Harrison, The Gospel among the Slaves, p. 61. In 1792 there were 


176 negro members in the West—the largest number during the 
years from 1787 to 1797. 

Cartwright, Autobiography, p. 422. 

For the organization of the Colonization society, see, Encyclopedia 
Brittanica—article on ‘‘Colonization Society.’’ The fact that men 
like William Ellery Channing, Benjamin Lundy, Gerritt Smith and 
James G. Birney gave their enthusiastic support to this organization 
shows that slaveholders and anti-slavery advocates were agreed 
as to the value and practicability of the scheme. Later, when it 
was thought that the purpose of the society was to further oppress 
the slaves, radical anti-slavery men withdrew their support and 
joined William Lloyd Garrison and other extremists. For the latter 
development, see Wilson, Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in 
America, Volume I., pp. 208-22. 


. Journals of the General Conference, Volume I., p. 271 (1824). 
. Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume II., p. 167, col. 3; June 


20, 1828. 


Ibid., Volume I., p. 146, col. 4; May 19, 1827. 
Pipidswp. 162, col. bs June 15, 1827. 
_ McFerrin, Methodism in Tennessee, Volume II., pp. 494-5. Cf. 


yet Christian Advocate, Volume XIll., p. 114, col. 4; October 
30, 184 
Zion’s Herald, Volume IV., No. 41, p. 3, col. 2; October 11, 1826. 


i Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume Tepe 19, col. 2; October 


5, 1827. The letter was dated August 14, 1827, 


. In 1823 there were only about 190 free negroes in Liberia. See 


Methodist Magazine, Volume VI., pp. 347-50 (1823). 


. Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume IV., p. 162, col. 2; June 


11, 1830 


Wipids Volume Te Ds Los. COL Ds dUNe wore Seo otal LOG. p Loo. 


col. 1; June 5, 1829 and Ibid., p. 171, col. 2; June 16, 1829. 


. Ibid., Volume II., p. 55, col. 2; December 7, 1827. Cf. Ibid., Volume 


Ill., p. 66, col. 5; December 26, 1828 and Zion’s Herald, Volume 
IV., No, 41, p. 2, cok 1; October 11, 1826. 


. Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume IV., p. 15, col. 4; Sep- 


tember 25, 1829. 


. Ibid., Volume V., p. 160, cols. 4-5; June 3, 1830. 

. Ibid., Volume II., p. 81, cols. 2-4; January 25, 1828. 

. Ibid., Volume V., p. 31, col. 3; October, 1830. 

MAIO ST erald iV OlIMel Vig NOs es Deven, COL Ms January 10. 1827. 
. Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume [IJ., p. 45, cols, 2-2; 


November 21, 1828. 


Be DEC sth ao ‘col, 3; February 6, 1829 

PLDIGet DD: 181, col. 3—182, col. 1; July 17, 1829. 

: Ibid., Volume IV., pp. 30, col. 5-31, col. 1: October 23, 1829. 
Abid Volume: LLet ps IS TaNcoien ds April 17, 1828. 

Sabid.) Volume ILL; pivi79;col73; June ‘30, 1829. 

. Ibid., Volume VI., p. 51, col. 4; November 25, 1831. Even if the 


$700,000 had been raised annually, it would have been less than 
half the amount which England appropriated for the abolition of 
slavery in the British possessions. 300,000 pounds was annually 
appropriated by Parliament for that purpose. See Ibid., Volume 
Til., .p..1385; col. 4; April 24; 1829. 


. Zion’s Herald, Volume IV., No. 44, p. 1, cols. 1-2; November 1, 1826. 
. Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume III., p. 203, col. 3; Aug- 


ust 21, 1829. 


. Ibid., Volume V., p. 107, col. 4; March 4, 1830. 
. Zion’s Herald, Volume IV., No. 41, p. 3, col. 2; October 11, 1826. 


(ie rh 
ay 

1a: 
Per? 
‘ 


UD 


Lath) ii 
af 


Waa, 





PART II 
THE PERIOD OF AGITATION 





CHAPTER, 


CONSERVATIVE METHODISM 


For almost a century prior to the era of William Lloyd 
Garrison, anti-slavery advocates had used their influence to 
secure manumission of slaves. The Friends, the Revolu- 
tionary patriots who subscribed in a practical way to the 
idéals of the Declaration of Independence, and some southern 
leaders of the first part of the nineteenth century, attempted 
to destroy slavery in the United States. Of anti-slavery 
leaders just before 1831 may be mentioned Benjamin 
Lundy, John Rankin, and James G. Birney.1 By that date, 
however, the anti-slavery movement seemed to be almost 
dead.? 


Several factors were responsible for the anti-slavery move- 
ment after 1831. The manumission of slaves in the West 
Indies, the new sympathy for unfortunates in public institu- 
tions, the development of manufacturing, and the conviction 
of some, even in slave states, that slavery was wrong, all 
aided in creating public sentiment in favor of the manumis- 
sion of slaves.2 But undoubtedly the most important factor 
of all was William Lloyd Garrison. From January 1, 1831, 
when the first number of The Liberator was published, a 
hatred hitherto unknown divided the people into two increas- 
ingly hostile camps. To the North, the tirades of Garrison 
constituted a call to repentance; to the South, his denuncia- 
tions were warnings that the southern “institution” was in 
danger. As for the churches, Garrison’s propaganda meant 
the schism of several of them, and the weakening of the 
bonds which bound others together. 

The influence of Garrison upon the Methodist Episcopal 
Church was not immediately apparent. Undoubtedly, there 
were many members and ministers’ who were personally 
opposed to slavery, yet until the outbreak of the Civil War 
the conservative party was very powerful. Conservatism was 
the watchword of the Church; and bishops, conferences and 


39 


40 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


official papers conformed to the wishes of the vast majority 
of the people of the Church and Nation. 

Two events in 1832 illustrate this tendency against radical- 
ism. In January, Bishop Hedding presided over the 
Georgia conference. In Augusta, he witnessed the sale of 
a slave, and expressed his indignation to another northerner 
who was present.t A few days later, a minister informed 
him that the conversation had been reported and had caused 
considerable excitement. The bishop was advised to be 
more prudent in his remarks upon the subject of slavery. 
And, according to his biographer, Hedding “did not consider 
it unwise to follow the counsels of his brother preacher.’ 

In May of the same year the General Conference met at 
Philadelphia. May 2, a motion was made which provided 
for a committee of seven who should “take into consideration 
the conditions, privileges, and rights of our people of color.” 
They were also empowered to review the section on slavery 
in the Discipline and “report what (if any) alterations ought 
to be made in the same.” Another resolution was offered 
instructing this committee “to inquire into the proper mean- 
ing of the clause in the General Rules concerning the buying 
or selling of men, women and children, with an intention to 
enslave them.” On the following day, Wilbur Fisk moved 
that consideration of the latter resolution be indefinitely 
postponed. May 16, the “Committee on the Rights and 
Privileges of the People of Color” reported—and the report 
was tabled.“ Nine days later, the Committee was given per- 
mission to withdraw their report. Later in the Conference, 
the chairman of the committee returned the papers which 
had been referred to them, and made a statement that it was 
considered inexpedient to act upon them at that time. He 
also re-submitted the report, and it was again tabled.§ It 
was never considered. 

The conservatism of Methodist leaders is also apparent in 
their attitude towards missionary work among the slaves. 
Under the able leadership of Dr. William Capers, these 
missionaries continued their unselfish service. In order to 
secure the fullest co-operation of masters, preachers began 
to hold their meetings on each plantation.2 The need of co- 
operation was fully recognized by a conference in the South 
to consider the missionary work among negroes. It was 


Conservative Methodism 4 1 


believed that southern ministers could most successfully carry 
on the work on the plantations.1° The Christian Advocate and 
Journal published many reports of revivals among slaves, and 
of the better moral conditions among the colored people of 
the South. The Ohio!! and Tennessee!” conferences gave their 
enthusiastic approval. Indeed, so effective was this mission- 
ary endeavor that Judge Cranch of Washington, D. C. de- 
clared that negroes of the Methodist Church were “seldom 
or never brought before the criminal courts for misconduct.” 
So successful was the missionary enterprise that Bishop 
Andrew wrote: “I would only say, in reference to the great 
work before us, we greatly need more men and more money.’”?4 


In the preceding chapter it was shown that, prior to 1831, 
the Colonization Society had the approval of the Methodist 
Church. Until abolitionists became very powerful, this 
organization continued to receive Methodist support. In 
1832 a mission was established in Liberia by action of the 
General Conference and representatives of the Society were 
commended to Methodist ministers and people. At the 
annual meeting of the American Colonization Society, held 
in January, 1833, the Rev. William Hammet declared that 
the General Conference action was unanimous, and that the 
Methodist Church with almost six hundred thousand mem- 
bers and nearly ten thousand ministers, approved the Society’s 
-purpose.7® Annual conferences adopted resolutions, pledging 
their support to the colonizationists.17 The resolution of the 
Kentucky conference, “That we continue to repose entire 
confidence in the rectitude, policy, and operations of the 
American Colonization Society, and that we commend it to 
all who are likely to regard our opinions as in any way 
worthy their approval and patronage,’’!8 is typical of those 
adopted by other conferences. 

Methodist publications also supported the Colonization 
Society. By one writer it was endorsed because it pointed 
“the path to peace in America, and regeneration to Africa.”1® 
The editor of the Christian Sentinel, the official publication 
of Virginia conference, appealed to his readers to encourage 
plans for colonizing negroes in Africa.*° The Christian Ad- 
vocate and Journal published letters from Liberia; reports 
from local and state colonization societies ;2! and memorials 


42 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


and addresses of the Society.2* In one of these it was set 
forth that the negro was desired in neither South nor North, 
and that the only practicable plan was to rid the country of 
the presence of the negro.*? In 1834, the editor, in behalf 
of the Colonization Society, requested all Methodist ministers 
to speak relative to the work of the Society on July 4 and 
take a collection for the same.** 

The conservatism of the Methodist Episcopal Church was 
especially pronounced in its relation to abolitionists and anti- 
slavery societies. Garrison’s announcement that he would be 
heard, proved to be no idle threat. Every failure of churches 
‘to show themselves opposed to slavery was held up to aboli- 
tion scorn, and the Methodist Church undoubtedly furnished 
its full quota of copy. One anonymous writer, “Onesimus,”?* 
declared that not a single person had ever been arraigned by 
any Methodist conference and expelled because of his con- 
nection wtih slavery.*® Methodist papers were said to be as 
“still as midnight and as silent as death,” except those which 
openly apologized for slaveholding. He further asserted that 
those members who refused to obey Church officers would 
not be tolerated, but that so long as a man rendered un- 
questioning obedience to his ecclesiastical superiors, he could 
do as he pleased in regard to slavery.27 This attack was 
immediately challenged, and Garrison apologized to the extent 
of saying that “the Methodists here, so far as we know, are 
as favorable to the Abolition cause as any other denomina- 
tion,’’*8 but the history of the anti-slavery movement in the 
Methodist Church for the succeeding thirty years proves 
beyond cavil that there was enough truth in the accusation 
to merit the censure which was heaped upon the time-servers 
in the Church. 


May 18, 1833, Garrison called upon all churches immedi- 
ately to exclude slaveholders of every rank from their or- 
ganizations." In reply, one defender of Methodism, “B. K. 
Jun.,” asserted that his Church would become abolitionist as 
fast as members and clergy received light. But “Onesimus” 
declared that Methodists did not desire light, and did not use 
what light the Discipline afforded. He also affirmed that the 
effectiveness of the Discipline on the question of slavery had 
been practically destroyed.2° A week later, he boldly charged 


Conservative Methodism 43 


that the reason for the conservatism of the Church and es- 
pecially of the Christian Advocate and Journal was that an 
uncompromising stand against slavery would cost that paper 
12,000 of its 30,000 subscribers ina single month and entail 
an annual loss of $25,000.41 This attack called forth a 
protest from La Roy Sunderland,** but that the Church was 
not abolitionist seems fully established by the fact that A. J. 
N. Danforth was refused permission to speak on the slavery 
question before a Methodist conference held at Boston. Only 
two members of this conference voted to hear him. Further, 
although both editor and business agent of Zion’s Herald 
were personally opposed to slavery, they refused to carry 
the statements of Garrison and other abolitionists in their 
columns because the paper was owned by the Boston Wes- 
leyan Association, which presumably was not abolitionist.®* 


Throughout the period to 1836, most of the conferences 
were opposed to abolitionists. New York conference re- 
gretted the radical propaganda because of the evil effects on 
negroes in Africa and the United States, and because they 
anticipated only the “most unfavorable results from such 
operations to the progress of Christian principles.”°* The 
Ohio conference of 1835 deprecated the excitement caused in 
slave states by abolitionism and disclaimed “all connection 
and co-operation with, or belief in the same.” The “junior 
preachers, local brethren, and private members” within the 
bounds of the conference were urged to abstain from all 
participation in the work of anti-slavery societies. They 
further affirmed that northern ministers and citizens who op- 
posed the anti-slavery crusade “with firmness and modera- 
tion” were the real friends of the Church, the slaves of the 
South, and the Constitution of the Nation. They were 
especially antagonistic to foreign abolition lecturers, and to 
all publications which had for their purpose the immediate 
abolition of slavery, and to encourage such radicalism was 
considered “injurious to Christian fellowship, dangerous to 
our civil institutions, unfavorable to the privileges and 
spiritual interests of the slaves, and unbecoming any Christ- 
lan, patriot, or philanthropist, and especially any Metho- 
dist.”85 Only four votes were cast against the resolutions 
and these were for other reasons than that the members 


44 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


favored abolitionists. Summing up the situation in the Ohio 
conference, the editor of the Western Christian Advocate 
declared his belief that the conference was unanimous on the 
following propositions: “Slavery is an evil. 2. It ought 
to be abolished in a gradual, constitutional manner. 3. The 
remedy proposed by ‘abolitionists’ is worse than the evil 
itself.”’36 

The Kentucky conference of 1835 condemned the activities 
of abolitionists as “an abuse of the rights of citizenship.” 
They discountenanced the propaganda of foreign lecturers 
and favored arresting “at once the mischievous tendency of 
their seditious intermeddling and officious insolence.” ‘They 
further suggested that it was dangerous to accept the leader- 
ship of those “whose measures and movements tend directly 
to subvert the Constitution and dissolve the Government.’’%? 
In the same year, the Tennessee?’ and Holston®® conferences 
approved the sentiments of the Ohio and Kentucky con- 
ferences, while the South Carolina conference declared that 
the principles of abolitionists were “utterly erroneous and 
altogether hurtful.’4° Even the Maine conference adopted 
resolutions, pledging themselves to prudent measures for the 
eradication of slavery.*} 

Not only conferences but also Church papers were conser- 
vative. While the Christian Advocate and Journal printed 
an account of a slave uprising in Virginia,** there was no 
suggestion of sympathy for the lot of the slaves, but only 
the statement that “prompt and efficient measures had been 
taken to quell the insurrection.”4* In the North, mobs at- 
tempted to break up anti-slavery meetings. In New York, 
four African churches were raided by mobs in 1834,** while 
in Philadelphia, some boys were responsible for a riot in 
which twenty negro dwellings were stripped of their contents 
and several people killed.*° The editor of the Advocate dis- 
countenanced both anti-slavery meetings and riots. He 
declared that ministers should keep aloof from all such 
agitation, for the salvation of souls was “their only business, 
and should engage all their time.’’4 

The Christian Advocate and Journal condemned abolition- 
ists unsparingly. In an article entitled “Abolitionists no 
Friends to Slaves” it was declared that the Anti-slavery So- 


Conservative Methodism 45 


ciety deserved “the reprobation of every sober friend either of 
the whites or blacks.’4* That abolitionists were extremely 
radical is undoubtedly true. All southerners who held slaves 
were declared to be pirates in name and character, while 
slave states were “Sodoms” and “every kitchen a brothel.” 
The New York editor declared that abolitionists desired 
political and social equality between the black and white 
races.48 He assured the South that the anti-slavery party in 
New York was an almost negligible factor and would soon 
disappear.*® In another article, he said he was opposed to 
slavery but also against the imprudent methods advocated by 
abolitionists. The national government could free only those 
slaves in the District of Columbia. Since slaveholding was 
a question with which the states must deal, he advised philan- 
thropists to send their lecturers into the South.°° He 
considered the anti-slavery propaganda as “at variance with 
the vested interests and constitutional rights and obligations 
of the country.” Since he feared that the question might be 
forced upon Congress and bitterness result, he urged that 
all churches be extremely conservative, and, as organizations, 
keep free from politics.°4 

The Western Christian Advocate was likewise conservative. 
The editor declared that he was opposed to slavery but that 
he had “quite as little fellowship with the few persons who 
have espoused the violent project of immediate abolition.’’? 
He affirmed his interest in colonization, and assured his 
readers that he would “rejoice in abolition, when it comes 
about according to the established constitutions of the coun- 
try, and the conventional and vested rights of its citizens.”’5?. 
The third official Methodist publication was the Methodist 
Magazine and Quarterly Review. Garrison affirmed that 
this magazine was also opposed to abolitionists, and cited in 
proof the statement of a contributor to the Review that “if 
a colored man were admitted to an association to which he 
belonged, he would withdraw,’*? Reference to this magazine 
confirms the opinion of Garrison that the publication was not 
anti-slavery.** 

Outside the bounds of New England, the Virginia Sentinel 
was the only Methodist publication which printed anything 
which had the abolition of slavery as its objective.®*® The 


46 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


editor declared that he had always been “mentally and practi- 
cally opposed to involuntary slavery.” He favored freedom 
of speech, and asserted that he, and everyone else, had the 
right to think as he pleased on the subject of slavery. But 
he deprecated the interference of Christians in the political 
affairs of the country for the purpose of freeing slaves. He 
considered that “designing and interested individuals” were 
“striving to produce confusion, hatred, and deep animosity 
between different sections of the country.” In his opinion, 
the question was one which should be handled with “extreme 
delicacy,’ and by the political powers only.°® The editorial 
closed with a strong appeal in behalf of the Colonization 
Society. 

As long as abolitionism had not secured a foothold among 
ministers of the Methodist Church, the excitement resulting 
from Garrison’s propaganda could be viewed with compara- 
tive equanimity. But discussion of this exciting subject could 
not long be avoided. By at least one writer, it was held that 
“Father Bonney” should be credited with starting the anti- 
slavery movement in New England conferences by writing 
several articles for the New England Christian Herald.®* 
Whether or not they are to be credited to him, several ar- 
ticles did appear in this paper in 1830 and 1831. In one 
account, the ill-treatment of slaves and the anti-slavery work 
of Methodists in Jamaica was set forth.°2 When F. Todd 
won one thousand dollars in a damage suit against Garrison, 
it was shown that the North Carolina Manumission Society 
had defended the abolitionist.°® Later, other articles appeared 
which unsparingly condemned slaveholding.® 

Bonney may have been the originator of the New England 
anti-slavery movement in the Methodist Church but he utter- 
ly failed to stir the Church against slavery. It remained for 
Orange Scott®! to do for the Methodist Episcopal Church 
what Garrison had already done for the Nation. For, with 
Scott’s entrance into the struggle in behalf of the slaves, it 
was impossible for the Church to ignore the slavery issue. 
Scott was unquestionably the most powerful of Methodist 
abolitionists.°* Previous to 1833 he does not seem to have 
even thought about slavery. But at that time, when he was 
thirty-three years of age, his attention was first called to the 


Conservative Methodism 47 


objectives of abolitionists. He immediately began to inform 
himself on the abolition side of the controversy, The Libera- 
tor being his chief. text. For almost a year he meditated as 
to his future course, then as presiding elder of Providence 
District he began to address camp-meetings and other as- 
semblies on his new theme. At the invitation of D. H. Ela, 
publisher of Zion’s Herald, he began a series of articles in 
that paper against slavery. So influential was Scott that, at 
the New England conference of 1834, he was able to have 
tabled a motion in favor of the Colonization Society.® 


Thus far, Scott had worked alone and achieved marked 
success. Now he conceived the idea of a movement which 
had for its purpose nothing less than the destruction of 
slaveholding in the Methodist Episcopal Church! Scott him- 
self tells how he started this crusade: ‘‘At that time I sub- 
scribed for one hundred copies of the Liberator for three 
months, to be directed to one hundred preachers of the N. E. 
Conference.** The result was as I anticipated. Before the 
three months expired a majority of the N. E. Conference 
(150 members in all,) was converted to Abolitionism.”&? 
Scott’s propaganda bore fruit at the New England confer- 
ence, which convened at Lynn, Massachusetts in June, 1835. 
An anti-slavery society was formed, which had for its object 
the “immediate and unconditional abolition of slavery.” Un- 
doubtedly, the fact that George Thompson addressed the 
ministers added to their zeal and courage. So powerful was 
the anti-slavery faction that an attempt to censure the course 
of Zion’s Herald, which had printed Scott’s articles, was 
defeated. And the crowning achievement of abolitionists at 
this session of the conference was the defeat of all conser- 
vative candidates, with the exception of Wilbur Fisk, in the 
election of delegates to represent them at the General Con- 
ference of 1836. 


The abolitionists were checked in their triumphant progress 
at only one point. Anti-slavery resolutions were introduced 
on Saturday and consideration of them deferred until Mon- 
day. While the debate was in progress, a memorial from 
New Bedford, signed by many laymen and deprecating the 
discussion of slavery by preachers, was read and laid on the 
table. Then the bishops, Hedding and Emory, who were 


48 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


present, lectured the ministers on the errors of abolitionism. 
On the closing day of the conference, the preachers formally 
apologized to the bishops for their radical action.*® The 
preachers had yielded to their superiors but a beginning had 
been made. The anti-slavery tendency of this conference 
was hailed with delight by Garrison who exclaimed: “The 
primitive spirit of Methodism is beginning to revive with all 
its holy zeal and courage, and it will not falter until the 
Methodist Churches are purged of slavery, and the last slave 
in the land stands forth a redeemed and regenerated being.”’® 
In the same year, New Hampshire conference proposed 
strong resolutions against slavery but Bishop Hedding re- 
fused to put them to a vote. 

Soon after the adjournment of these conferences, Hedding 
and Emory prepared an address to New England ministers.® 
In this document they unqualifiedly condemned the agitation 
which had been carried on in the two conferences as inimical 
to the highest interests of the Church, and particularly of 
the colored people of the South. It was asserted that a 
“deep political game” was “involved in the present agitation 
of this question,” and ministers were urged to keep them- 
selves clear of the controversy. In order to make doubly 
sure that ministers did not engage in anti-slavery discussions, 
it was suggested that presiding elders and laymen discounte- 
nance all attempts of ministers to speak on this subject.® 
It is to be noted that neither bishop was personally favorable 
to slavery but simply followed the precedent established by 


Asbury who was interested first of all in the spiritual life 
of negroes.®® 


These two bishops were not alone in their desire to 
check the abolition movement in the Church. Dr. Wilbur 
Fisk, who refused, in October, 1835, to sign a petition for 
the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia,’? was 
likewise for moderation. He feared the ultimate results of 
the abolition movement if it were permitted to continue un- 
checked. He declared that the tendency of the movement 
was towards the dismemberment of both Church and 
Nation. As might be expected, there were replies to the 
bishops” and to Fisk, who, with Professor Whedon, was 
accused of catering to slaveholders. Fisk was president of 


Conservative Methodism 49 


Wesleyan University and was advised to move the college 
if he expected to strengthen the institution by aligning him- 
self with the pro-slavery element.” 


The immediate result of the abolition struggle in New 
England conferences was the concentration of Methodism’s 
conservative forces against refractory ministers who set at 
defiance the wishes and commands of Church officers. The 
cause for the defection is unknown, but the management of 
Zion's Herald decided not to print the arguments of ultra- 
abolitionists. ‘That the latter might have a medium for the 
the dissemination of anti-slavery doctrines, Z1on’s Watchman 
was established at New York, and the first copy issued, 
January 1, 1836. The founding of this new abolition paper 
by La Roy Sunderland and George Storrs was commended 
by Garrison who declared that official Methodist papers 
possessed excessive power." 


Various conferences outside of New England set them- 
selves resolutely against these disturbers of the Church’s 
peace. New York conference regretted the work of abol- 
itionists since they believed the best interests of the negro, 
slave or freedman, were injured rather than helped by their 
propaganda.“ Ohio conference resolved: “That as friends 
of peaceable, gradual emancipation, we have no cause to 
regret the course which has been pursued by the Methodist 
Episcopal Church on the subject of slavery, as set forth in 
the Discipline, but retain undiminished confidence in the 
same.”*?6 And the conferences, to whose resolutions refer- 
ence has already been made,’? were emphatic in their de- 
mands that ministers and laymen should refrain from any 
connection with radicalism, The support of the bishops and 
Dr. Fisk, as well as all measures against anti-slavery min- 
isters, is incontrovertibly proved by the final resolution of 
Tennessee conference that they approved “of the course 
pursued by the Maine, Ohio, and Kentucky conferences, and 
also the efforts of Dr. Fisk in opposition to abolitionism, 
and especially of the letter recently addressed by Bishops 
Hedding and Emory to the New England and New Hamp- 
shire conferences.’ 


Opposition to abolitionism was reflected in the official 
Christian Advocate and Journal. When a group of aboli- 


50 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


tionists, of whom La Roy Sunderland was one, signed an 
address in which they said: “We shall show you that the 
Christian Advocate and Journal, the official organ of this 
Church, apologizes for the crimes of the enslaver of human 
species, and attempts to justify the system,” the editor denied 
the accusation and said that he recognized the disease but 
objected to the medicine prescribed by abolitionists. He 
asserted that he was carrying out the will of New York 
conference and the General Conference,”? and assured his 
readers that those who espoused the cause of immediate 
abolition of slavery set themselves in opposition to the wishes 
of the General Conference.®® 


Another result of abolition excitement in New England, 
showing the conservatism of the Church, was the tendency 
of southern Methodists to sustain the pro-slavery party in 
their opposition to northern radicals. As a direct result of 
the New England controversy, the Rev. Mr. Postell, a Metho- 
dist preacher, in an address to slaveholders of South Caro- 
lina, advised: “Shun abolition as you would the DEVIL. Do 
your duty as citizens and Christians; and in heaven you will 
be rewarded, and delivered from abolitionism.’”®! In 1835, 
when the Post Office at Charleston was sacked and all anti- 
slavery papers in it destroyed, a public meeting was called, 
at which all ministers were present to show their approval of 
the act.22 At Jackson, Mississippi, copies of the Emanctpa- 
tor were withheld by the postmaster because they were ad- 
dressed to “The Methodist Clergymen” of the state, The 
editor of a local paper affirmed that it was inconceivable that 
Methodist ministers would countenance abolition propaganda 
but declared that some “lazy scoundrels” did. He expressed 
the hope that all such might be caught and lynched.®* 

A further result of the agitation for immediate abolition 
of slavery was the attempt of apologists for slavery to prove 
that the Church should not seek to destroy slavery. Two 
arguments were used: (1) That the abolition of slavery 
was a political question and not a religious one: therefore, 
the Church should not concern itself therewith; (2) that 
slavery was justified by the Scriptures. In regard to the 
first contention, South Carolina conference held that only 
when a slave was abused was the Church to interfere, and 


Conservative Methodism 51 


then, not because the negro was held in slavery, but only 
because of ill-treatment. The conference was equally certain 
that the Scriptures authorized the holding of slaves.84 At 
the request of the conference, a statement written by the 
Rev. Samuel Dunwody, one of their number, was published, 
in which he asserted the principle of slavery was justified by 
the Decalogue.™ 


During the period from 1831 to 1836, bishops, confer- 
ences and ministers were studiously conservative. Towards 
the work among the slaves they maintained a very cordial 
interest ; while the Colonization Society received their heart- 
iest commendation. When Garrison began his attacks on 
slavery, and incidentally on the churches, all the power of 
Methodism was mustered in opposition. So long as the move- 
ment was outside the Church, the peace of the organization 
was not a question of great concern; but when Scott 
attacked slavery in the Church, peace was impossible until 
either the pro-slavery or the abolition forces were driven 
from the Methodist fold. For the present, the conservative 
group controlled the counsels of the Church. From 1832 to 
1836 there was not a single decision given in favor of aboli- 
tionists, while no decision was rendered without the sanction 
of the pro-slavery party. The Church’s unwillingness to 
accede to demands of abolitionists caused the storm to rage 
still more fiercely. Ministers left their regular work to lec- 
ture against slavery ;°° reason fled ; and bitter anathemas were 
many times substituted for logic and fact. 


1. Hart, Slavery and Abolition, pp. 152-69. Writers disagree on the 
question as to who should have the credit for starting the anti-sla- 
very movement. Hart believes that Lundy was the great leader, 
while Henry Ward Beecher considered John Rankin the reali leader 
of the movement (See Birney, James G. Birney and his Times, 
pp. 168-9). If the choice is to be made between these two men, 
the former should be selected since his Genius of Universal Emancipa- 
tion antedates the reform work of Rankin, begun in 1827, by six 
years. Relative to an opinion commonly held at the time that 
“abolitionism dates with Arthur Tappan and William Lloyd Gar- 
rison,’’ Weston says: “There is not an intelligent man born in 
America, who has reached or past middle life, who does not know 
that there is not one particle of truth in any of these statements, 
or the least color, or pretense of color, for them’’ (Weston, Prog- 
ress of Slavery in the United States, p. 176). He says that the 
Quakers should have the honor since in 1754 they issued a state- 
ment against slavery and gave ag their reason ‘‘that custom and 
familiarity with evil of any kind have a tendency to bias the judg- 
ment and deprave the mind’”’ (Ibid., p. 189). 

2. Hart, Slavery and Abolitionism, pp. 165-6, 173. 

3. Ibid., pp. 170-80. 


52 


om T 


15. 
16. 


wes 


18. 


19. 


20. 
21. 


22. 


Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


Hedding was from New England. He said: ‘Don’t that make your 
Yankee blood boil?’’ 

Clark, Life and Times of Hedding, pp. 399-400. 

Journals of the General Conference, Volume JI., p. 367 (1832). 
EDI ep ibibo 

Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume IV., p. 14, col. 3; Sep- 
tember 25, 1829. The information is contained in a letter from 
Dr. Capers, dated September 7, 1829. 


. Ibid., Volume VIII., p. 62, col. 3; December 13, 1833. Dr. Capers 


presided at this missionary meeting. 


. Western Christian Advocate, Volume II., pp. 77-8; September 11, 


1835. 


. Elliott, The Great Secession, col. 131. 
. Andrews, Slavery and the Domestic Slave-Trade in the United 


States, p. 121. 


. Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume VII., p. 142, col. 3; May 


3, 1833. It is significant that Capers felt constrained to disclaim 
any connection between southern negro missions and either the 
anti-slavery societies or the Colonization Society. (Christian Advo- 
cate and Journal, Volume VIIL., p. 190, col. 5; July 25, 1834) Capers 
was probably not opposed to colonization but only trying to allay 
suspicion. 

As to the nature of the instructions imparted to slaves, the 
South Carolina conference furnishes a complete answer. Said 
these ministers: ‘‘Our missionaries inculcate the duties of servants 
to their masters as we find those duties in the Scriptures. They 
inculeate the performance of them as indispensibly important. We 
hold that a Christian slave must be submissive, faithful, and 
obedient, for reasons of the same authority with those which oblige 
husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, to fulfill 
the duties of these relations. We would employ no one in the work 
who might hesitate to teach thus, nor can such a one be found in 
the whole number of the preachers of this Conference’’ (Shipp, The 
History of Methodism in South Carolina, pp.497-8.) 
alice Advocate and Journal, Volume VI., p. 159, col. 4; June 
Ibid., Volume VII., p. 105. col. 6; March 1, 1823. The speaker 
declared that ‘‘All the other leading denominations of the country, 
sir, do the same.’’ 

I have examined the reports of the following conferences: New 
York (Christian Advocate and Journal. Volume VIII., p. 155, col. 
2; May 238, 1834); New Jersey (Ibid., Volume XI., p. 164, col. 
4; June 2, 1837): Ohio (Western Christian Advocate, Volume II., 
pp. 77-8; September 11, 1835); Kentucky—yYear, 1832 (Redford, 
Western Cavaliers, pp. 71-2.) 
Redford, Cavaliers, pp. 148-9 (1835). That there was some opposition 
to the Colonization Society on the part of southerners is apparent 
from the following statement: ‘‘There is a general aversion, on the 
part of the colored people of this state (Maryland), both bound 
and free, to the plan of colonization in Africa. This dislike Mr. A. 
attributes principally to the publications of the Anti-Slavery Soci- 
ety, which are extensively circulated here among the free blacks. 
He even regrets that the Methodist Church has given its sanction to 
the plan of the Colonization Society, since it prejudices the colored 
people against its members and teachers. The Methodist church, 
in this state, includes a great number of colored members, among 
whom are many slaves.” (Andrews, Slavery and the Domestic 
Slave-Trade in the United States, pp. 36-7). The statement was 
made in 1835. 
Methodist Magazine and Quarterly Review, Volume XVII., p. 137. 
The statement is contained in the ‘‘Third Annual Report of the 
New York Colonization Society.’’ 
Christian Sentinel, Volume II., p. 94, cols. 4-5; November 15, 1833. 
See especially the issues of this paper for the months of January, 
February and March, 1836. 
Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume V., p. 165, col, 1; June 17, 
1831; Volume VI., p. 123, col. 2; March 30, 1832; Volume VII., p. 
sail anes July 26, 1833; and Volume VIII., p. 70, col. 5; Decem- 
er 27, 3 


23. 


28. 
29. 


30. 
31. 


32. 


33. 
34. 


35. 
36. 
37. 


38. 


Conservative Methodism 53 


Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume VI., p. 97, col. 5; February 
17, 1832. The statement is as follows: ‘‘According to the last cen- 
sus, there were no fewer than 339,360 free blacks within the limits 
of the United States. Their numbers are constantly increasing, in a 
formidable ratio. At the south they are looked upon with suspicion, 
and almost with abhorrence. At the north they are regarded as an 
inferior caste, and consequently deprived of every incentive to vir- 
tuous action. Wealth cannot bring them within the sphere of 
social intercourse; nor merit (however great or justly earned,) 
elevate them to the privileges and association of white men.’’ 


. Ibid., Volume VIII., p, 179, col. 5; July 4, 1834. 

. See the Biblical epistle to Philemon. 

. L believe this statement is untrue. Cf. Chapter I. 

. The Liberator, Volume III., p. 69, cols. 2-3; May 4, 1833. His 


charge is that ‘‘while a Methodist member would not be tolerated 
one day, who dared to think differently from the heads of the 
craft; a man who will call certain persons, Rabbi, and obsequiously 
admit and accomplish all that he is ordered to execute, can kidnap 
as long as he lists, and be esteemed in exact proportion to the 
atrocity of his wickedness, and the accumulation of his plunder.’’ 
Ibid., p. 75, cols. 2-83; May 11, 1838. We may be sure that this was 
not intended as a compliment to the Methodist Church 

The Liberator, Volume III., p. 78, col. 4; May 18, 1833. 

Ibid, p.. 82, -coly 33) May, 25,1833. 

Ibid., p. 85, cols. 1-2; June 1, 1833. ‘I asked one of the Metho- 
dist brethren very recently what was the reason that their New 
York Advocate and Journal which weekly distributes 30,000 sheets, never 
even hinted at the question of slavery; especially as their own so 
highly eulogized discipline declares that every slaveholder is in 
‘the gall of bitterness and the bonds of iniquity?’ My friend replied, 
‘they are afraid, they dare not—a good conscience and faithfulness 
to duty would cost too much. One such paper of sound doctrine, such 
as this Firebrand No. III., which I shewed him, would lop off 12,000 
subscribers in one month.’ 

“This reminded me of the time-serving politician who always 
shifted with the course of events; alleging, that a good conscience 
was too valuable an article for him; he could not afford to possess 
such a jewel. It seems that the editors of the Advocate are of the 
same opinion. What! denounce man-stealing, when they should lose 
the fingering of $25,000 per annum? No, no. Brother Capers may 
drive his slaves until they caper! and brother Watson may kidnap 
men’s wives, and sell them as often as he chooses; and brother 
Rives may exchange women for sheep!—and but we forbear the 
dire detail. Philanthropists, however, these editorial Doctors can 
calumniate, and the friends of humanity are reviled with applause; 
but no Methodist Advocate, no Quarterly Review, no Zion’s Herald 
BANGS away at the felonious confederacy of man-stealers, which 
constitute the Methodist Episcopal Church, south of the Pennsyl- 
vania line and the Ohio. No, no! ‘IT WOULD COST TOO MUCH.’ ”’ 
Ibid., p. 96, cols. 4-5; June 15, 1833. Sunderland later seceded 
from the Methodist Church because it was not abolitionist, 

The Liberator, Volume III., p. 155, col. 5; September 28, 1833. 
aucun Advocate and Journal, Volume VIII., p. 155, col. 2; May 
8, 1834, 

Western Christian Advocate, Volume II., p. 77, cols. 1-3; Sep- 
tember 11, 1835. 

be dana Christian Advocate, Volume II., p. 77, cols, 1-3; September 

y Lsabe 
Redford, Western Cavaliers, pp. 148-9. Cf. Redford, Life and Times 
of Bishop Cavanaugh, pp. 171-2 and Elliott, The Great Secession, 
col, 130. Another source—Parker, Autobiography, pp. 155-6—gives 
some corroborative material. Parker says: ‘On another occasion 
in Augusta, Ky. the seat of a Methodist college; where I had been 
delivering a temperance lecture; a number of young men, students 


. from the south, were standing in the street. One of them observed 


that John Rankin ought to have his throat cut.’”?’ Rankin was 
accused of helping negroes to escape to Canada. 

Elliott, The Great Secession, col. 131. This conference condemned 
the course of the abolitionists as ‘‘fraught with danger to the peace, 


o4 


39. 
40. 


49. 


50. 


52. 
54. 


Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


union, and very existence of this republic, unsustained by Scripture, 
and at variance, both with the letter and spirit of the Gospel.’”’ 
The Liberator, Volume VI.. p. 5, col. 2; January 9, 1836. 

Shipp, The History of Methodism in South Carolina, pp. 497-8. The 
second resolution read: ‘‘We denounce the principles and opinions 
of the abolitionists in toto, and do solemnly declare our conviction 
and belief that, whether they originated as some business men have 
thought, as a money speculation, or aS some politicians think, for 
party electioneering purposes, OF, aS We are inclined to believe in a false 
philosophy, overreaching or setting aside the Scriptures through a vain conceit of a 
higher moral refinement, they are utterly erroneous and altogether hurt- 
ful.” This was in 1836. 


. Allen and Pilsbury, Methodism in Maine, p. 105. The ree 


are given in full. 


. Christian Advocate and Journal, Bday Vie pi LS. ous ae 5; Sep- 


tember 23, 1831. See also, Ibid., SeHCOLeas September 2, 1831 and 
Tpid., 'p: 7. col. 4; September Ly 1831, 


. Ibid., p. 3, col. 3; September 2, 1831. 
pbid.)) Volume) iVIll:.);p. 187; col. 23 -July 118, 1834. 
. Ibid., p. 207, col. 2; August 22, 1834. For a similar. occurrence 


see Ibid., Volume IX., p. 7, col. 5; September 5, 1834. 


. Ibid., Volume VIII., p. 27, cols. 1-2; October 11, 1833. 
, Lbid.,,’ pp. 190, ‘col.’ 5; July 25, 1834. 
. Christian Advocate and Journal, p. 154, col. 6; May 23, 1834. His 


statement follows: ‘‘Such is the spirit and temper of men who claim 
to be philanthropists, and who urge immediate abolition, and perfect 
equality, political and social as well as moral, and as a specimen 
of their practical designs, not only insist that the children of 
our black population shall be educated in the same schools with our 
own, but invited the ‘colored ladies and gentlemen,’ to be seated 
promiscuously on the platform and through the house, without dis- 
tinction of color, an invitation which was accepted by hundreds of 
them and has been since followed up at their other public meetings.”’ 
“They may be assured that the anti-slavery party here is so small 
in number, and so inconsiderable in influence, that their glory is 
at an end, their downfall certain.’’ (Ibid.) 

Ibid., p. 202, cols. 4-5; August 15, 1834. Commenting on the coming 
of George Thompson, an ardent English lecturer on slavery, the 
editor said: “If he has a special mission to masters and slaves, why 
not go to the country where slavery exists, and try the strength 
of his arguments there instead of lending his force among a com- 
munity where reciprocal rights of freemen are respected. The 
physician is needed only in the chamber of the sick, and not at the 
firesides of the healthy.’ (Ibid., Volume IX., p. 116, col. 6; March 
13, 1835) D. M. Reese said Thompson purposed to “‘split the great 
Methodist prop by which the slavery of this country is supported.” 
(Ibid.) Because the Christian Advocate and Journal Was so ultra con- 
servative, Garrison declared that it was ‘‘mainly under the influ- 
ence of so vindictive, selfish and loathsome a creature as David 
M. Reece.’”’ The Advocate was considered deaf, blind and dumb to 
the cries of the slaves, and was condemned for refusing to print 
anti-slavery material sent in to it. (The Liberator, Volume VL, 
Duldscol. 37, January, 16; 18386). 


. Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume VIII., p. 27, col. 1; October 


11, 1833. ‘‘The Church, as a body, should not be political in any 
sense, nor on any question.’’ 
Western Christian Advocate, Volume I., p. 18, col. 5; May 30, 1834. 


. The Liberator, Volume III., p. 71 col. 4; May 4, 1833 


Methodist Magazine and Quarterly Review, Volume XVII—New 
Series, Volume VI (1835), p. 186. ‘‘You would convince the south, 
while the south is one mass of adamant, against every syllable you 
send upon her, and every movement you make but confirms the 
solidity. Your main success is in defeating yourselves; your advance 
is—backward; and when the bonds of the slave shall be finally 
broken, it will be not in consequence, but in spite of your sadly 
mistaken efforts.’’ 


. Christian Sentinel, Volume I., p. 71, col. 3; October 5, 1832. The 


article referred to was quoted from the Staunton Spectator and 
reads as follows: ‘‘Memorials in favor of abolition, and in the 
event that the Legislature will not pass a general law on the sub- 


63. 


70. 
71. 


81. 
$2. 


Conservative Methodism AY) 


ject, praying for the passage of an act prohibiting any slave from 
being brought into Western Virginia after the first day of June 
next, and providing for the gradual abolition of slavery in this 
portion of the State, are printed at this office for gratuitous dis- 
tribution. All persons friendly to the cause are respectfully in- 
vited to call or send for copies and aid in procuring signatures.” 


. Christian Sentinel, Volume II., p. 94, cols. 4-5; November, 15, 1833. 
. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume III., p. 173, col. 6; 
5 


October 31, 1855. 


. New England Christian Herald, Volume II., p. 32, col. 1; November 


24, 1830. Cf. Ibid., p. 44, cols. 2-3; December 15, 1830. 


. ibid., p. 62, col. 4; January 19, 1831. 
. Ibid., p. 177, col. 1; August 10, 1831. Cf. Ibid., p. 150, col. 3; June 


22, 1831 and p. 154, cols. 3-4; June 29, 1831. 


. Scott died in 1847. 
. Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, pp. 31-5 and 70-71. 
. Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, pp. 31-5. Cf. Crawford, Centen- 


nial of New England Methodism, pp. 209-10; Mudge, The History 
of the New England Conferences, p. 279. Of the last two, the 
latter is the better history. 


. “N.E.’?’ means the New England conference. 
. Crawford, The Centennial of New England Methodism, p. 210. 
. This controversy resulted in a struggle over ‘‘conference rights’”’ 


and was one of the milestones in the growth of democracy in the 
Methodist Episcopal Church. 


. This address was chiefly the work of Bishop Emory. 
. Emory, The Life of Bishop Emory, pp. 279-84. Concerning the 


radicalism of New England conferences he wrote a member of 
Genesee conference, September 11, 1835: ‘ ‘The ultraism of im- 
mediate abolitionism has given us much trouble in two of the 
conferences, and but two. I am persuaded it has done immense 
injury to the cause of the blacks themselves.” (Ibid., p. 278). 

Ibid., p. 257. Bishop Emory, while in East Tennessee in 1832, saw 
droves of negroes being taken to the West. He wrote one of his 
sons: “The principal droves on this road are negroes, whom their 
despicable drivers are driving westward. There is now before my 
eyes a drove of about a hundred. The current of movers westward, 
on this road, is also very great; and there are generally with them 
five or six blacks to one white. So this root of evil is planted and 
transplanted, and what will the end be?’’ 

Crawford, The Centennial of New England Methodism, p. 211. 
Holdich, The Life of Wilbur Fisk, p. 326. Cf. Elliott, The Great 
Secession, cols. 126-‘. Fisk’s statement, a3 a forecast, is interest- 
ing and valuable. Said he, writing in 1835: “I think its ultimate 
tendency, nay, the aim of some of the leaders of this business, is 
the dismemberment of the political union and of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church . . . What other result can possibly follow, if all 
the North gets excited in opposition to the South?’ 


. Crawford, The Centennial of New England Methodism, p. 210. 
. The Liberator, Volume V., p. 62, cols. 5-6; April 18, 1835. 
. Ibid., Volume VI., p. 11, col. 3; January 16, 1836. Cf. Elliott, 


The Great Secession, col. 187. 


; rae ee eat Advocate and Journal, Volume VIII., p. 179, col. 5; July 


? 


. Western Christian Advocate, Volume II., pp. 77-8; September 11, 


1835. The report was introduced by a committee of which T. x 
Morris and L. L. Hamline, both of whom were later chosen as 
bishops of the Church, were members. 


. Supra, pp. 43-4. 
. Elliott, The Great Secession, col. 131. 
. Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume IX., p. 102, col. 3; Febru- 


ary 27, 1835. 


. Ibid., p. 182, col. 4; July 10., 1835. This policy was in accord 


with the statement issued over a year previously that the paper 
‘is and must be conducted on the positive principles established 
by the General Conference, and is essential to our peace and unity 
as a Church.”’ (Ibid., Volume VIII.,. p. 106, col. 6; March 3, 1834.) 
Jay, Miscellaneous Writings on Slavery, p. 412. 


Ibid., p. 476. The Charleston Courier reported that ‘‘the clergy 


of all denominations attended in a body lending their sanction to 


56 


83. 
84. 


Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


the proceedings, and adding by their presence to the impressive 
character of the scene.’’ The meeting declared that the “‘thanks of 
this meeting are due to the reverend gentlemen of the clergy in 
this city who have so promptly and SO effectually responded to the 
public sentiment, by suspending their schools, in which the free 
colored population were taught; and that this meeting deem it a patri- 
otic action, worthy of ali praise and proper to be imitated by the 
teachers of similar schools throughout the South.’’ 

The Liberator, Volume V., p. 157, col. 1; October 3, 1835. 

Shipp, The History of Methodism in South Carolina, pp. 497-8. The 
resolutions bearing on this topic are as follows: ‘1. We regard the 
question of abolition of slavery as a civil one, belonging to the 
State, and not at all a religious one, Or appropriate to the Church. 
Though we do hold that abuses, which may sometimes happen, 
such as excessive labor, extreme punishment, withholding food and 
clothing, neglect in sickness or old age and the like, are immorali- 
ties to be prevented or punished by all possible means, both of 
Church discipline and the civil law—each in its sphere.” 

“3. We consider and believe that the Holy Scriptures, so far 
from giving countenance to this delusion (abolitionism), do unequiv- 
ocally authorize the relation of master and slave: (1) By holding 
masters and their slaves alike as believers, brethren, and beloved; 
(2) by enjoining on each the duties proper toward the other; (3) by 
grounding their obligations for the fulfillment of their duties, as 
of all others, on their relation to God. Masters could never have 
had their duties enforced by the consideration, ‘Your MASTER also is 
in heaven,’ if barely being a master involved in itself anything im- 
moral.” The Scripture upon which the conference based their 
argument is the sixth chapter of Ephesians. It unquestionably 
authorizes slavery. 

It is evident that the sentiments expressed by members of 
South Carolina conference were identical with those proclaimed by 
five southern legislatures which adopted resolutions calling upon 
northern states to ‘‘crush the traitorous designs of the abolitionists.’” 


' The five states were South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, 


85. 


86. 


Georgia and Alabama. (Elliot, The Great Secession, cols. 154-5.) 
Matlack, History of American Slavery and Methodism, p. 88. In 
part, Dunwody said: ‘I am not an advocate for slavery, and with. 
my present views, I never will be, while I draw the breath of life. 
But this I confess, that I am an advocate for those genuine Gospel doctrines, 
in which the principle of slavery is JUSTIFIED in a variety of 
instances! !! 

“Another error, into which the anti-slaveholders have fallen is 
the confounding slavery as it exists in the Church, with slavery as 
it exists in the State; whereas, there is a wide difference between 
them. What may be moral evil in the State, may not be moral evil in the Church, 
because they are placed in different circumstances. 

“The Scriptures already quoted, and a variety of others that 
might be quoted, all combine to prove that the PRINCIPLE of slavery 
has been recognized by the appointment of God under the Old 
Testament dispensation. But another argument of considerable 
strength, to show that God himself has SANCTIONED THE PRIN- 
CIPLE of slavery, may be found in the moral law itself. In the 
tenth commandment it is expressly declared, that the Israelites were 
possessed of servants, and their right to hold such property was 
recognized even by the moral law itself, which is acknowledged 
by all Christians to be of perpetual obligation, even down to the 
end of the world.’’ 

Cartwright (Autobiography. p. 364) says: ‘‘Prior to the General 
Conference of 1836, the run-mad spirit of rabid abolitionism had 
broken out in some of the eastern and northern conferences; and 
Methodist preachers were found by the dozen to quit their appro- 
priate fields of labor, and their holy calling of saving souls, and 
turn out, and become hired lecturers against slavery. So zealous 
were they, that they forgot their pastoral duties; and they went 
so far as violently to oppose colonization as a slaveholding trick.” 
Fisk opposed and vanquished them ‘“‘seeing that this rabid aboli- 
tionism would rivet the chains of slavery the tighter, rouse the 
jealousies of the slaveholders, and disrupt the Methodist Church.’’ 


Conservative Methodism 57 


It may be noted that some of this radical material was a reprint 
of Wesley’s “Thoughts on Slavery’’ (The Wesleyan Extra. Vol- 
ume I., No. 1—found at the Evanston, Illinois, Public Library); 
and some anti-slavery resolutions from Windsor, Maine, favoring 
prayers for the enslaved (The Liberator, Volume VI., p, 66, col. 5; 


April 23, 1836). 


CHAPTER V 


THE TROUBLES OF METHODISM 


The first real test of strength between Methodist abolition- 
ists and their opponents came at the General Conference 
of 1836. In 1832, Garrison had had little or no influence 
upon the General Conference proceedings. But five years 
of agitation‘and the enlistment of a few leading Methodist 
ministers in the cause of human freedom made it inevitable 
that slavery would be the most exciting topic considered by 
the: quadrennial conference. 

Cincinnati, the seat of the Conference, was in perfect 
accord with the spirit of Methodism. The city was so 
friendly towards the southern viewpoint and so opposed to 
abolitionism that James G. Birney was compelled to deliver 
an anti-slavery lecture in a Presbyterian church at Fulton, 
a suburb of Cincinnati.! Later, his life was threatened and 
his office wrecked by a mob. The attitude of Cincinnati is 
further shown by the action of the trustees of Lane Sem- 
inary, concurred in by the president,? by which the students 
were forbidden to organize, or belong to anti-slavery so- 
cieties, or “hold meetings or speak on the subject.” As a 
result, most of the students and several professors withdrew 
in a body. When Oberlin College voted to receive negroes 
as students, three professors and thirty students from Lane . 
Seminary joined the new college in 1835.5 

Previous to the convening of the General Conference, 
there had been an insurrection of slaves in Virginia. The 
result was that most southerners were more than ever in- 
censed at abolitionists.© Perhaps because of this antagonism, 
which was shared by most northern Methodists, no change 
in the attitude of the Church towards slavery was anticipated. 
William Smith of Virginia said: “The days spent on this 
question will be days of excitement and anxiety; but they 
will pass away; and when over, there will be one reflection 
prominent in many minds — we have wasted time, talked 


D8 


The Troubles of Methodism 59 


long, and loud, and gained nothing. The voice of the church 
will speak the same language that it speaks now.””? 

Most of: the delegates to the General Conference would 
gladly have avoided the slavery question, but an address from 
the English Wesleyan Church, and a number of petitions 
from abolition conferences and local anti-slavery societies 
made it impossible to longer delay meeting the issue.2 The 
British address stirred the Conference profoundly. English 
Methodists regretted, so it was affirmed, that a former appeal 
had excited American Methodists and caused them embar- 
rassment, but they continued to hope that the emancipation 
of slaves in the United States might be consummated. They 
disclaimed any intention of meddling in American affairs, 
and declared that they were advocating nothing for Ameri- 
cans that they had not adopted for themselves. ‘They closed 
their address by expressing the hope that Americans might 
“adopt such measures as” might “lead to the safe and speedy 
emancipation of the whole slave population of their great 
and interesting country.” 

Nothing could have been better calculated to give the few 
abolitionists of the Conference an opportunity to present 
their anti-slavery arguments. During the debate on the ad- 
dress, which lasted through almost the entire session of 
May 5, abolitionism was called an ‘‘unhallowed flame that 
has burned to the destruction of both whites and blacks.” In 
reply, Spicer of Troy conference remarked that a great deal 
of attention had been given to the trouble that abolitionism 
had caused, while calamities caused by slavery had not been 
so much as mentioned. In answer to the charge that south- 
erners were not interested in the welfare of slaves, Dr. 
Capers declared that southern preachers were willing to give 
their lives for the salvation of negroes. John Early, another 
spokesman for the South, called upon the members of the 
_ Methodist Episcopal Church throughout the country to de- 
nounce abolitionists. Orange Scott sought to have the 
British address printed but his motion was defeated. When 
it was renewed on the following day by Nathan Bangs, the 
vote was a tie. Bishop Soule was the presiding officer, so, 
as Matlack says, “the document was not ordered printed.’’?° 

When the reply to the British address was finally adopted, 
neither slavery nor abolitionism was directly censured. The 
Conference stated that British Methodists did not under- 


60 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


stand conditions in the United States; that slavery was so 
interwoven with the affairs of the nation that it could not 
be readily removed; and that abolitionism had been the cause 
of considerable trouble to American Methodists.!° 

An exciting struggle was precipitated on May 3, when 
Stephen G. Roszel of Baltimore conference moved the ap- 
pointment of a committee on slavery, who should consider 
all documents bearing on the topic. The motion was tabled.™ 
But a week later, a committee was appointed to consider 
addresses of New Hampshire and New England conferences 
on the subject of slavery. Of the seven ministers who 
composed this committee only two were abolitionists.1* May 
14, a petition from~certain persons in New England con- 
ference dealing with slavery was presented by Orange Scott 
and referred to the proper committee. Nathan Bangs, 
editor of the Christian Advocate and Journal, attempted to 
hinder the abolition advance by moving that the Conference 
receive no petition “unless subscribed by the memorialists 
in their own proper signatures.” An amendment to substitute 
“authorized” for “proper” was lost. Bangs then withdrew 
his motion but it was renewed by Roszel, and after being 
debated by several delegates, the vote was taken and the 
motion lost. Following this action, memorials from New 
Hampshire, Troy and Oneida conferences, and from many 
other smaller groups, were presented to the conference and, 
on motion of Nathan Bangs, referred to the committee on 
slavery.8 7 | 

The report of the Committee on Slavery, presented on 
May 21, was clearly the handiwork of the pro-slavery and 
conservative majority. The committee declared that they 
had seriously considered the subject referred to them and 
were of the opinion that “the prayers of the memorialists” 
could not be granted. They believed that “it would be highly 
improper for the General Conference to take any action 
that would alter or change” the rule on slavery. They there- 
fore submitted for adoption a resolution which stated that 
it was inexpedient to change the Discipline on the subject 
of slavery, and that further agitation of the subject in the 
General Conference was considered “improper.” 13 

There had been plenty of agitation. During the first days 
of the Conference, one of the weekly meetings of the Cin- 
cinnati anti-slavery society was held, and two General Con- 


The Troubles of Methodism 61 


ference delegates from New England, Storrs and Norris, 
briefly addressed the meeting. The result was that fifteen 
new members were added to the society. May 12, Roszel 
introduced a preamble and two resolutions dealing with the 
“crime” of these abolitionists. The preamble recited that 
the country had been profoundly stirred by the activities of 
abolitionists ; that it was reported that two members of the 
Conference had increased the excitement in Cincinnati by 
lecturing in favor of abolitionism ; that such a course probably 
would bring upon the Conference the suspicion and distrust 
of the community; and that the situation demanded a full 
statement of the position of the Conference. The resolutions 
declared that the Conference disapproved the conduct of the 
two members who had so disgraced their brethren; and that 
the Conference not only opposed abolitionists, but disclaimed 
“any right, wish or intention to interfere in the civil and 
political relation existing between master and slave as it 
exists in the slaveholding states of this Union.’’!* 

The excitement produced by these resolutions was in- 
tense,’ two days being devoted to the debates which followed 
their introduction.1® Scott proposed an amendment by which 
the Conference would go on record against slavery as well as 
against abolitionism, but the delegates refused to accept, by, 
a vote of 123 to 15, even the language of the Discipline on 
the subject.17 It was during the debate on these resolutions 
that Scott declared that abolitionism could not be crushed. 
Said he: “When you can put your foot on one of the burning 
mountains and smother its fires — when you can roll back 
the current of the thundering falls of Niagara — or stop the 
sun in its course, you may then begin to think about ‘crushing 
abolitionism! Sir, the die is cast —the days of the cap- 
tivity of our country are numbered! ITS REDEMPTION 
IS WRITTEN IN HEAVEN!!48 But the warning of 
Scott availed nothing. The first resolution was adopted, 122 
to 11. The first part of the second was agreed to, 120 to 
14, and the whole adopted, 137 to 0.19 

One writer has pointed out that the introduction of these 
resolutions really defeated the purposes of the southerners 
because abolitionists were given an opportunity to defend 
themselves and expound their doctrines. As a consequence, 
northerners were more than ever convinced that slavery was 
wrong. Luther Lee believed that the Conference had sought 


62 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


to abridge the right of free speech, and that the abolitionists 
were right. He acted upon his convictions and joined the 
anti-slavery ranks.2® The Garrisonian school viewed with 
scorn the attempt to crush the abolition movement in the 
Church. The fourteen who “would not bow the knee to 
slavery in any shape” were commended; while the South 
was bitterly condemned as belonging with those who had 
crucified the Christ.”? 

If it were expected that these attacks on abolitionism 
would result in checking the discussion of the slavery ques- 
tion, the hope was vain. Orange Scott again disturbed the 
Conference by circulating a pamphlet among the members, 
which gave an account of the debates on the question at 
issue. May 24, Mr. Winans proposed a resolution which 
condemned the “Address” as “palpably false, and calculated 
to make an impression to the injury of the character of some 
of the members engaged in the aforesaid discussion.” It 
was also declared that the pamphlet was an “outrage on the 
dignity of this body,” and merited “unqualified reprehen- 
sion.’22. Scott asked that, since he was the author of the 
address, his name be inserted in the resolution, but his 
request was denied. Winans spoke at length in support of 
his measure, and this gave Scott another opportunity to 
expound the doctrines of the radicals.22 The motion to 
refer the resolution to a select committee was defeated, and 
the adoption of the Winans resolution ordered, 97 to 19. 
That all might know the position of the General Conference, 
it was ordered that their action in this instance should be 
published in the Western Christian Advocate and the Christ- 
tan Advocate and Journal.?2 

That Church leaders, North as well as South, were in 
complete accord with the action taken, may be gathered from 
a letter which Nathan Bangs wrote to the Christian Advocate 
and Journal, May 26. He agreed with Winans that Scott’s 
address contained “unfair, and even false statements.” He 
affirmed that the abolition agitation was irritating and “much 
to be dreaded as a troubler of our Israel.” That unfairness 
and misrepresentation had been resorted to, proved to Bangs 
that the movement was unsound and unworthy of the 
people’s confidence. He urged that, while charity might make 
allowance for the motives of abolitionists, yet no one should 
be deceived by the “garbled statements” made by Scott.?4 


ye 


The Troubles of Methodism es 


In justice to Scott it should be said that, while the accusa- 
tion was freely made that there had been unfairness and 
untruthfulness in Scott’s statement, absolutely no proof was 
presented to sustain the assertion. 

So irritating was the course of the abolitionists in the 
General Conference that some southern leaders advocated 
that the rule on slavery be expunged from the Discipline, 
and some even favored a division of the Church. In fact, 
the southern delegates held a caucus for the purpose of 
devising a plan of separation from the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, unless the North so modified “the Discipline as 
to tolerate slavery, or make it no bar to membership in the 
Church.” Cartwright declares that William Smith was the’ 
leader of this movement. But the southern extremists were 
too few in numbers to accomplish separation.2° The time 
for division had not fully come. 

Slaveholding seems to have been a factor in the choice 
of new bishops. Southern delegates nominated William 
Capers, John Early and Thomas A. Morris as those who 
would be most acceptable to the South. Morris was elected 
on an early ballot.2® Capers refused to be a candidate be- 
cause he was “from necessity, not from choice, a slaveholder,” 
and because “it would prejudice a bishop at the north to 
be connected with it.”*7 Brunson asserts that “it was under- 
stood and agreed even in the South at that time, that no 
slaveholder should fill the Episcopal office.”?5 

But if this point were perfectly understood in the South 
in 1836, it does not seem to have been so well apprehended 
in the North. James B. Finley wrote a letter, October 1, 
1839, in which he said that he wanted a “Southern man for 
our Episcopate and Editors, that will come out in opposition 
to this lot of all demon-abolitionism.” He said he had been 
charged with voting for William Capers for bishop in 1836; 
and with the saying that if he were elected as a delegate again, 
he would do the same. Finley refused to deny the indictment 
against him.?® Even Cartwright met with the southern dele- 
gates and declared his entire willingness to vote for Capers, 
Winans or Early — or for any other Southerner, satisfactory 
to the South.*° 

Early in May, plans were made to discourage all discussion 
of slavery after the adjournment of the General Conference. 
May 11, Roszel proposed that the committee which had 


64 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


been appointed to draft the “Pastoral Address” to the mem- 
bers and friends of the Church, should especially consider 
the subject of abolitionism and make it perfectly clear that 
the Conference was opposed to the radical program.** 
Orange Scott suggested an amendment to the motion, pro- 
viding for a section on slavery in the address. As a result 
of this interference, Roszel’s motion was withdrawn.*2 

Evidently the Committee who wrote the address knew the 
sentiment of the Conference, for the document was an un- 
sparing condemnation of abolitionism and the tactics of 
abolitionists in the General Conference. They declared that 
they were convinced that abolitionists were harming rather 
than helping the slaves, because planters had become alarmed 
and were refusing to allow Methodist missionaries to have 
free access to the slaves. Mutual forbearance was urged 
upon both abolitionists and southerners. No doubt, the 
message was meant especially for anti-slavery agitators, for 
the Committee asserted: “From every view of the subject 
which we have been able to take, and from the most calm 
and dispassionate survey of the ground we have come to the 
solemn conviction, that the only safe, scriptural, and prudent 
way, for us, both as ministers and people, to take, is wholly 
to refrain from this agitating subject.’ 

Neither of the three parties — conservative, abolition, pro- 
slavery — was entirely calm as a result of these exciting 
debates. Nathan Bangs may be considered a representative 
of the conservative party. Writing on June 17, just after 
the adjournment of the General Conference, he warned his 
readers against the reports of Conference debates as pub- 
lished in the Philanthropist and the pamphlet of Scott.34 The 
fact that Bangs did not find a single instance in which a 
southerner had made a misstatement or been guilty of an 
exaggeration indicates that he and those he represented were 
in hearty sympathy with the South. 

Naturally, Garrison was greatly incensed at the action of 
the Conference. He affirmed that he had seen the growing 
corruption of the churches until he had “ceased to be 
astonished at any degree of infatuation or depravity which 
they may exhibit.” Again he said: “Here we have, as a 
gazing stock for infidels, the highest ecclesiastical body of 
a large church, whose ‘dignity is outraged’ by a persecuted 
member calmly and heroically defending himself and his 


The Troubles of Methodism 65 


brethren. Proclaim it not in Tammany Hall, publish it not 
among the heathen.” He asserted that abolitionists outside 
the Methodist Church had been attacked in General Confer- 
ence debates, and that James G. Birney had been called “the 
vilest muscreant.”®> Garrison declared that the Methodist 
Church needed a prophet to deliver the message of Micah.*® 
So disappointed was the great abolitionist that he called the 
General Conference of 1836 a “cage of unclean birds and 
a synagogue of Satan.” For this utterance he was roundly 
rebuked by Zion’s Herald, which reminded him that four- 
teen of the “unclean birds” were abolitionists.57 

Methodist abolition papers were as radical as Garrison 
and Birney. The editor of the Pittsburg Conference Journal 
declared that “MODESTY and PRUDENCE should dictate 
to Southern men not to attempt to force themselves as Am- 
bassadors of Christ upon those who can not receive them as 
such.’’38 He affirmed that many northerners were dissatisfied 
with the General Conference because of the attitude on slav- 
ery and abolitionism. He asserted that the whole North was 
abolitionist “in a qualified sense,” and that these had the 
power in the General Conference to pass any legislation they 
pleased. The only reason they refrained from radical action 
was that the country was in a ferment of excitement.*® 
Another radical paper, Zion’s Watchman, condemned the 
Virgina Sentinel for openly advocating “a division of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church because its editors and corres- 
pondents think they have been proscribed in not having a 
slaveholding bishop to preside over them.”#° 

The pro-slavery faction also had able apologists. In refu- 
tation of the statements which had been quoted from the 
Pittsburg paper, the editor of the Virginia Sentinel simply 
called attention to the vote of the General Conference on the 
subject of abolitionism and suggested that the northern paper 
was untrustworthy.4! The suggestion that southerners show 
due modesty and prudence in their demand that they should 
not be barred from becoming bishops because they were 
slaveholders, stirred the South profoundly.4# The assertion 
that Southerners were angry because no slaveholders had 
been elected to the Board of Bishops was declared to be 
false. Southerners only objected to the proscription of their 
section. The editor declared that they had not demanded a 
slaveholding bishop but had asserted that being a slaveholder 


66 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


ought not to be a barrier to the highest office in the gift 
of the Church.?° 

But there was also a more radical note. William Smith, 
publisher and one of the editors of the Sentinel, called upon 
the South to support his paper, rather than allow it to 
continue simply a branch of the Christian Advocate and 
Journal. Another writer resented the proscription of the 
South because of slavery and urged that delegates be no 
longer sent to another General Conference, except to “fix 
the boundary between northern fanatics and southern 
rights.”48 Another inveighed against sending “delegates 
longer to an assembly where a bigoted and reckless majority 
silence all their appeals for justice and right, by their fan- 
atical clamors; and even trample upon their feelings as men 
and ministers.’”*4 In reply to the last correspondent, the 
editor attempted to allay the feeling that had been aroused.*® 


The troublers of Methodism, led by the intrepid and capa- 
ble Orange Scott, had succeeded even in their failure. The 
introduction of memorials, resolutions and documents of 
different kinds had stirred the antagonism of various groups 
towards each other as perhaps nothing else could have done. 
Abolitionists had been condemned, sometimes without an 
adequate opportunity to defend themselves, but on every 
occasion they were able to strike one more blow for freedom. 
On the other hand, conservatives and pro-slavery delegates 
had been able to overwhelm anti-slavery delegates on every 
occasion. When it was inadvisable, from a pro-slavery view- 
point, that a document be printed, it was not done; when 
it would seem to further the desires of the South to have 
any document published, there was no lack of votes to make 
the action valid. So far as the immediate results were con- 
cerned, Long was undoubtedly right when he said that slavery 
was triumphant in the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1836.*6 


. Birney, James G. Birney and His Times, p. 258. 

. Hart, Slavery and Abolition, p. 193. 

. The president was Dr. Lyman Beecher, father of Henry Ward 
Beecher and Harriet Beecher Stowe. The latter ‘‘made some 
observations during her residence which were later incorporated 
into Uncle Tom’s Cabin.’’ (Ibid., p. 190.) 

. Macy, The Anti-Slavery Crusade—A Chronicle of the Gathering 

Storm, p. 74, Cf. Hart, Slavery and Abolition, p. 191 

Hart, Slavery and Abolition, pp. 192-3. 

. Brunson, A. Western Pioneer, Volume I., pp. 390-91. 

. Virginia Conference Sentinel, Volume I., p. 39, col. 1; May 13, 1836. 

. Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, p. 85. 


wre 


BART & 


The Troubles of Methodism 67 


9. Elliot, The Great Secession, cols. 916-18. 


10. 


Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, p. 87. The result would 
probably have been the same if any other bishop had been presid- 
ing. Soule was especially disliked because of his later connection 
with the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. 


. Journals of the General Conference, Volume I., p. 430 (1836). 
. Ibid., p. 442. 
Pdbid.. pr 7448 “(183695 


Cf. Virginia Conference Sentinel, Volume I., pp. 85, col. 6—86, col. 
1; August 5, 1836. 


. Journals of the General Conference, Volume I., p. 447. Cf. Matlack, 


The Life of Orange Scott, pp. 88-9. The resolutions follow: ‘‘Re- 
solved, by the delegates of the annual Conferences in General 
Conference assembled: 1. That they disapprove, in the most un- 
qualified sense, the conduct of the two members of the General 
Conference, who are reported to have lectured in this city recently, 
upon and in favour of immedate abolitionism. 

“Resolved, 2. That they are decidedly opposed to modern aboli- 
tionism and wholly disclaim any right, wish, or intention to 
interfere in the civil and political relation existing between master 
and slave as it exists in the slaveholding States of the Union.’’ 


. Journals of the General Conference, Volume I., pp. 445-7 (1836). 
. Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, p. 90. 

. Ibid., pp. 96-99. 

TOI): D.k'95. 

. Journals of the General Conference, Volume I., p. 446 (1836). Cf. 


Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume X., p. 181, cols. 4-5; 
July 8, 1836. 


. Lee, Autobiography, pp. 134-5. 
. The Emancipator (May 26, 1836) was quoted by The Liberator, Volume 


XII., p. 170, col. 5; October 28, 1842. The comment of the Emancipator 
was as follows: ‘‘Fourteen would not bow the knee to slavery in 


any shape .. . .. So much for the slaveholding Christianity of 
the Methodist church! If we mistake not, the proceedings in the 
General Conference .. . . will show up the Christianity of the 


South in no very enviable light. No doubt it can be very devout 
at times—make very pathetic speeches at religious anniversaries— 
and so could the religion of those who crucified the Son of God. 
We shall see whether the religion of the South is any better.’’ 
So far as the vote indicated, the North might have been included 
in the denunciation. 


. Journals of the General Conference, Volume I., p. 479 (1836). 
. Ibid., p. 486. Cf. Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, pp. 99-106. 
. Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume X., p. 167, col. 1; June 


10, 1836. 


. Cartwright, Autobiography, p. 361. Cf. The Liberator, Volume 


MEL pr 93s colt: June sais) 1836. 


. Peck, The Life and Times of George Peck, pp. 173, 188. 
. Ibid., pp. 173-4. Cf. Peck, Slavery and the Episcopacy, p. 53. 


When Capers was urged, in 1832, to become a candidate for the 
episcopacy, ‘‘on the ground that he was irretrievably a slaveholder’ he 
refused to permit his name to be used in this connection. It 
may be observed that it was Capers, even according to the hostile 
Peck, who raised the objection and not a northerner. 


. Brunson, A Western Pioneer, Volume I., p. 394. 
oo. 
30. 


Southwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., No. 36; July 4, 1845. 
(Nashville) Christian Advocate, Volume XXI:; March 12, 1857. 
The statement of the editor is as follows: ‘‘The first time we 
ever saw him (Cartwright) was at the General Conference in the 
vear 1836. He then and there met the delegates from the Southern 
Conferences, and, in a speech made before them, asserted that 
the South was entitled to a bishop, and should not be proscribed 
because of slavery. That he himself was with the South in 
feeling and sentiment; that he was willing and anxious to vote 
for a Southern man for bishop; that his owning slaves was no 
objection to him; he was willing to vote for Capers, Winans, 
Early—any one on whom the South might concentrate; that to 
use his own elegant figure, ‘the negro was no impediment in his 


68 


31. 


32. 


33. 


34, 


35. 


36. 


45. 
46. 


Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


way; he was ready to pin back his ears, grease him, and swallow 
him whole, wool and all.’ ” 

Journals of the General Conference, Volume I., p. 443. The reso- 
lution was that ‘“‘the committee appointed to draft a pastoral 
letter to our preachers, members and friends be, and they are 
hereby instructed to take notice of the subject of modern abolition, 
that has so seriously agitated the different parts of our country, 
and that they let our preachers, members, and friends know that 
the General Conference are opposed to the agitation of that sub- 
ject, and will use all prudent means to put it down.”’ 

Matlack, The Life of’ Orange Scott, p. 88. 

Elliot, The Great Secession, cols, 915-16. Cf. Matlack, The Life 
of Orange Scott, p. 109; Lee, Autobiography, p. 135; Crawford, 
Centennial of New England Methodism, p. 211. Dr. Parkhurst 
comments: ‘Spirit of John Wesley! what would he have said 
at such language? Thus did those men seek to quiet and restrain 
an aroused Christian conscience.’’ 

Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume X., p. 170, col. 6; June 
17, 1836. The passage reads: “I think it proper to warn our 
readers against receiving the reports of the speeches in the Gen- 
eral Conference on the subject of abolitionism, as published in 
the Philanthropist and the Address to the General Conference 
by a member of that body (Scott). In some parts they are mere 
caricatures, and greatly colored.” 

The Liberator, Volume VL. p. 95, cols. 4-5; June 11, 1836. Birney 
does not seem to have despaired of the situation. Said he: ‘‘We 
assure the friends of liberty, that our cause has been greatly 
advanced in this city, by the infatuated conduct of the slaveholders 
and their abettors in the General Conference. God is evidently 
fighting against them, by distracting their counsels and permitting 
them to foam out their own shame.” (Ibid.) 

The passage in Micah is as follows: ‘‘Thus saith the Lord con- 
cerning the prophets that make my people err, that bite with their 
teeth, and cry, Peace; and he that putteth not into their mouths, 
they even prepare war against him: Therefore night shall be unto 
you that ye shall not have vision; and it shall be dark unto you, 
that ye shall not divine; and the sun shall go down over the proph- 
ets, and the day shall be dark over them.’’ (Micah 38: 5-6). 


. Virginia Conference Sentinel, Volume I. p. 94, col. 5; August 19, 


1836. 


. Ibid., p. 119, col. 2; September 30, 1836. 
. Ibid., p. 115, col. 2; September 23, 1836. 
. Ibid., p. 1380, col, 4; October 21, 18386. Sunderland was editor of 


Zion’s Watchman. 
Ibid., p. 115, cols. 2-3; September 23, 1836. 


. Ibid., p. 119, col. 2; September 30, 1836. 
. Elliot, The Great Secession, cols. 144-5. See also, Virginia Con- 


ference Sentinel, Volume I., p. 119, col. 3; September 30, 1836. 


. Virginia Conference Sentinel, Volume I., p. 127, col. 2; October 


14, 1836. The editor’s statement reads: ‘‘With the wild notions and 
mal-practices of the Abolitionists, we have no affinity, either in 
our own principles or feelings; and we have looked to the proba- 
ble rupture of all the bonds of union, ecclesiastical and civil, as 
a result of their practices, and not as a matter to be desired or 
sought after. It will be seen that our correspondent expresses 
the hope that the next General Conference may be for the pur- 
pose of running boundary lines between the Northern and South- 
ern portions of our Church. We hope for a different issue.” He 
concluded his editorial with a thrust at abolitionists: ‘‘One thing 
is clear, that the Methodist Episcopal Church in the Southern 
States has not been unmindful of the souls of the colored popula- 
tion. In every period of her history, she has directed her efforts 
to the promotion of their salvation, and was in the full career of 
usefulness when her course was stayed by the Abolitionists.’’ 
ahha Conference Sentinel, Volume I., p. 127, col. 2; October 
14, 1836. 

Long, Pictures of Slavery in Church and State, p. 31. 


Cire Uik V1 


THE RULE OF THE BISHOPS, 1836- 1837 


To the bishops of the Church the General Conference 
had given the not unwelcome task of protecting Methodism 
from the ravages of abolitionism. In conformity with the 
“Pastoral Address” New York conference adopted reso- 
lutions in which they disapproved of any of their number 
aiding abolitionists, censured Zion's Watchman because 
it was anti-slavery,” and refused to elect any candidate dea- 
con or elder unless he pledged himself to réfrain from 
agitating the slavery question.® Finally, the conference 
“affectionately advised and admonished” their members 
to refrain from attending any abolition meetings of any 
kind, “either in or out of the church,” or disturbing “the 
peace of the Church.” Against none of these resolutions 
were more than three votes recorded.* 


New England and New Hampshire conferences were not 
so tractable. The former, which convened July 13, 1836, 
was involved in a number of serious difficulties, upon which 
action must be taken. The first concerned the veracity 
of Orange Scott, who had been accused at Cincinnati of 
making untruthful statements on the subject of abolition- 
ism and slandering members of the General Conference. 
With a majority of his own conference supporting him, 
Scott was assured a complete and enthusiastic endorsement 
of everything he had said at Cincinnati® Then La Roy 
Sunderland was brought to trial, the charge being “slander 
or misrepresentation in repeated instances.” He was re- 
quired to correct his misstatements and cautioned to be 
more guarded henceforth in his utterances, but his character 
was approved.® 

Two important episodes marked the close of the confer- 
ence. The first was the result of the controversy between 
Bishop Hedding and Orange Scott. On the real question 
at issue there could be no compromise. Hedding had the 
power to suppress Scott and proceeded to exercise it. 


69 


70 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


Using his appointing power as a means of disciplining Scott, 
Hedding refused to re-appoint the abolitionist to his pos- 
ition as presiding elder, simply because he refused to stop 
lecturing against slavery.’ The second was a tardy at- 
tempt to adopt a report on slavery. The report was read 
on the last night of the conference. Bishop Hedding 
refused to put the motion for adoption to a vote, alleging 
that there was a strong majority who wished to debate 
the question before voting upon it. One of the conser- 
vatives made a motion to adjourn but this was easily 
defeated. Whereupon, the bishop read the list of appoint- 
ments for the ensuing year and closed the conference.® 
Elliott asserts that this conference was opposed to aboli- 
tionists,? but the struggle between the ministers and the 
bishop does not support his statement. Nevertheless, 
Hedding had succeeded in preventing a motion hostile to 
slavery from being passed by the conference. 


The agitation in New Hampshire conference centered 
around Hedding and George Storrs. Here again, the 
bishop ‘used his power to discipline a refractory member. 
Many friends of Storrs urged Hedding to appoint him to 
a vacant presiding eldership. When Storrs asserted that 
he would speak against slavery, Hedding replied: “My obli- 
gation to the Church, then, will not allow me to appoint 
you presiding elder; for I should only be putting you in 
a more prominent place that you might do more mischief.”?° 
The following morning, Storrs read a statement to the 
conference in which he said that he could not accept an 
appointment “under an officer of the General Conference 
in view of the action of that body on the subject of slavery.” 
He requested that he be given a “location”. As a result of 
the action of Hedding relative to Scott and Storrs, and his 
refusal to put to a vote a motion against slavery, many of 
the bishop’s best friends became his bitterest enemies. So 
intense was the feeling against him that he felt compelled to 
change his place of residence. In the Fall of 1836 he moved 
from Lynn, Massachusetts to Lansingburgh, New York.1° 
In only one conference outside of New England were the 
abolitionists numerous enough to constitute a disturbing ele- 
ment. Between anti-slavery advocates and conservatives of 
Erie conference an exciting debate took place. But the con- 


The Rule of the Bishops, 1836-1837 71 


servatives won, for the final action of the conference was in 
support of the commands of the General Conference. Elliott 
declares that this result was obtained because a majority of 
the preachers and people belonged to the two chief political 
parties, both of which were under the control of the South.4 
Thus in every conference held in 1836 in which abolitionists 
were at all numerous, the work of the radicals was defeated, 
in two instances at least, because Bishop Hedding had used 
his power to weaken the abolitionists as much as possible. 
Outwardly, the Methodist Episcopal Church presented a 
united front against’ the radicalism of Garrison, Scott, Sun- 
derland and Storrs ;!? beneath the surface, however, there 
might have been discovered the disappointed hopes, and the 
unwavering determination of those who saw the vision of a 
Church free from the taint of slavery. 

By 1837 the discussion of the question of slavery in the 
Church had become more widespread than ever before. 
The Georgia conference declared that the intention of the 
rule on slavery had been perverted so that slavery was pro- 
claimed a moral evil. . This was denied and the declaration 
made that ministers had nothing to do with the institution 
of slavery except to make the condition of the slave as satis- 
factory as possible, and to bring to both slave and master the 
influences of the Christian religion. The course of the 
bishops was unqualifiedly approved. This action was heartily 
approved by South Carolina conference. 

The border conferences were divided in their attitude 
towards slavery. Kentucky conference required a member 
of that body to free some slaves who had come to him by 
the will of his father..4 Philadelphia conference refused to 
receive Matlack as a traveling preacher because he had 
assisted in the organization of an anti-slavery society. One 
member declared that even if the applicant were “as pious as 
St. Paul and as talented as an angel, he should never enter 
this conference as an abolitionist” if he were able to prevent 
it.1® The action of Baltimore conference caused considerable 
excitement. The ministers adopted a resolution, making 
the wrong of buying, selling or holding slaves to depend upon 
“the attendant circumstances of cruelty, injustice, or inhu- 
manity on the one hand, or those of kindness or good inten- 
tions on the other, under which the transaction shall have 
been perpetrated.” In all such cases, the charge of immorality 


72 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


was to be brought against the minister or layman, and the 
decision governed by the conference interpretation.’® 

At Genesee conference, a committee of five was appointed 
to receive all petitions dealing with slavery and report what 
course would be proper for the conference to pursue in 
respect to that topic.17 Hedding would permit a vote on 
the motion for the appointment of this committee only on 
condition that he would not be expected to allow a vote on 
any report which he considered contrary to the Discipline or 
the advice of the General Conference of 1836. The motion 
was carried with this provision.1® So favorable to slave- 
holders was Hedding’s statement that even the conservative 
Nathan Bangs declared that if he were Hedding he would 
not permit his address to be published, because, said he, 
“T would not dare to make such a use of my influence; that 
address, if published, will be understood, all through the 
South, as a defense of slavery.’’!® 

To this committee were referred the petitions of over 
seven hundred members of the Church within the bounds 
of the conference. These petitioners asked: (1) for an of- 
ficial expression of the conference on the question of slav- 
ery; and (2) that the conference memorialize the next 
General Conference for a change in the rule on slavery, 
making it more stringent. The report of the committee was 
in keeping with the circumstances under which the members 
were appointed. The second request of the petitioners was 
considered premature: since there would be two sessions of 
the conference before 1840. In regard to the first request, 
the committee declared that the Discipline, in affirming that 
slavery was a ‘great evil’, referred not so much to its civil 
and political, but to its moral character. They believed 
further that the rule applied to the internal as well as the 
foreign traffic. In dealing with the whole subject, the com- 
mittee urged that reason rather than sympathy be employed. 

Three conclusions were recommended as the best judgment 
of the conference: (1) It was agreed that the subject might 
be investigated and that one might speak on slavery, but, 
considering its connection with the politics of the country, 
it was deemed inadvisable and improper to employ the 
Sabbath in that manner. (2) No part of the ministry 
should be neglected to call attention to this or any other 
subject which was of secondary importance to the real work 


The Rule of the Bishops, 1836-1837 73 


of the ministry. (3) The stirring up of hatred against those 
in authority in the Church was deplored, because it opened 
up the way for the denunciation of any member of the 
Church by another member. Such a course was especially 
deplored among ministers, who were the religious and moral 
leaders of the people.?° 

In spite of this equivocal action, an anti-slavery society 
was formed with sixty charter members. Forty more min- 
isters joined soon after. The constitution of the society 
was in conformity with the report on slavery, so that no 
radical action could be expected immediately. A beginning 
had been made, however, and the abolitionists might look - 
forward with confidence to eventually winning the battle 
for freedom. The development of even this much anti- 
slavery sentiment was probably due to Orange Scott, who 
seemed to attend every conference of which Bishop Hedding 
was the presiding officer.** 

Scott was also present at Erie conference and was instru- 
mental in forming an anti-slavery society, made up of almost 
half the members of the conference.** But for this year, the 
conservatives were victorious. The conference disclaimed, 
by a vote of 31 to 25, all connection with the society.”* 
They also sustained the interpretation of the rule made by 
Baltimore conference, when, in spite of the heroic efforts of 
Scott, a motion condemning the resolutions of the southern 
conference was defeated, 32 to 29. This reverse did not 
dishearten the abolitionists but only spurred them on to 
greater efforts during the ensuing year.?4 

When Oneida conference convened some two weeks later, 
Bishop Hedding and Scott again found themselves opposed 
to each other. The question of slavery was introduced early 
in the session and the bishop addressed the conference at 
considerable length, setting forth his views. Scott lectured 
in the Baptist church to a large audience, among whom were. 
most of the Methodist ministers, George Peck then presented 
resolutions against Scott for presuming to lecture against 
slavery. Previous to this time, Hedding had refused to 
introduce Scott to the conference lest the ministers think 
that their bishop was in favor of anti-slavery principles. 
But Peck’s resolution made it incumbent upon Hedding to 
permit Scott to defend himself. The debate never occurred: 
the resolutions were withdrawn, and Peck even refused to 


74 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


furnish a copy of them to Scott when requested to do so. 
Due to the opposition to Scott in the conference, the other 
churches were closed to abolition meetings, and Scott was 
compelled to lecture outside, using the steps of the Baptist 
Church as a platform.”° ° Again, the abolitionists must place 
their hope in the future. 

Three conferences— New England, Maine and New 
Hampshire — constituted the abolition territory of the Meth- 
odist Church. All sessions of these conferences were excit- 
ing. So prominent an advocate of abolitionism had Scott 
become that Hedding, who had come to New England confer- 
ence for that purpose, spent half a day dealing with him. 
Scott, who was absolutely fearless, took an equal time to 
reply. He was charged with “slander, unchristian conduct, 
and misrepresentation.” He was prevailed upon to retract 
most of what he had said of a personal nature, and his char- 
acter was then passed.2® Bishop Waugh, the presiding officer, 
then attempted to prevent Scott from speaking against slav- 
ery. The latter wished to be left without appointment but 
he was assigned to a charge and the presiding elder instructed 
not to release him. Later in the year, however, nine ministers 
signed a statement in which they asserted their belief that 
Scott should be permitted to travel as much as possible for a 
year “for the benefit of his health.” It seems that his health 
was not the best, but the fact remains that he did travel for 
the Anti-slavery Society a great deal of the time.?? 

By far the greatest excitement, and the most far-reaching 
results, sprang from the struggle over the radical anti-slavery 
program. Memorials from 3,403 Methodists were received, 
but a motion to refer the same to a select committee was 
declared inadmissable by the bishop.28 As a consequence of 
these arbitrary methods, a call, signed by about seven hun- 
dred preachers and laymen, and directed by Orange Scott 
and a fellow-abolitionist named Merritt, was made in Zion’s 
Herald, October 13, 1837, for the first Methodist Anti-slavery 
convention, to be held at Lynn, Massachusetts. The purpose 
of the meeting was two-fold: (1) to strengthen abolition 
sentiment; (2) but more especially to express themselves 
on the right of petition and the powers of the annual 
conference.?° 

Maine conference convened June 28, and the abolitionists 
immediately began their attacks. Orange Scott and George 


oe 


ee ee ee ee ee ee, ee eee 





The Rule of the Bishops, 1836-1837 75 


Storrs lectured; and anti-slavery pamphlets were freely dis- 
tributed among the preachers. Many petitions against 
slavery were in the hands of the ministers although they 
were not presented for fear of a collision with Bishop 
Waugh.” But the real strength of the abolitionists is 
shown by the fact that an anti-slavery society, with over 
seventy-five ministers as members, was organized. Scott . 
reported that the conference had a decided majority in favor 
of the abolition of slavery and that the rest were not antag- 
onistic to the radical program. He predicted that these 
ministers would take a strong stand against slavery the 
following year.29 

Ministers of New Hampshire conferences were determined 
to pass anti-slavery resolutions or none, but the opposition 
of Hedding was still more stubborn than that of Waugh.*° 
Scott and Storrs were present to stir the anti-slavery party 
to the highest pitch of excitement.*! Hedding repeated what 
he had said at the other New England conferences — that 
whatever could be sanctioned according to the Golden Rule 
should be done, but that all else should be forbidden. His 
Golden Rule policy became the target of abolition scorn in 
the northeastern conferences. The bishop prevented the 
appointment of a committee on slavery,®? by refusing to 
put the motion for such a committee unless it was understood 
that all conference business prior to the appointment of 
preachers to their charges must be properly cared for before 
the committee’s report was considered, and this report should 
not be opposed to the expressed will of the General Con- 
ference — the bishop to be the judge in both instances. The 
conference refused to comply with Hedding’s wishes and 
the committee was not ordered.?? Further, when an attempt 
was made to pass a motion condemning the resolutions of 
Baltimore conference relative to the interpretation of the 
rule on slavery, the bishop refused to entertain the motion.** 

By their rulings in New England conferences, Hedding and 
Waugh had hoped to destroy the rising power of abolitionists. 
The result was far different from what they probably antici- 
pated, and certainly the opposite to what they desired. 
Anti-slavery Methodists increased their efforts. La Roy Sun- 
derland published his “Testimony of God against Slavery,’’®° 
and by his lectures far and wide aided the cause. Orange 
Scott was especially prominent in building up anti-slavery 


76 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


sentiment in a number of northern conferences until aboli- 
tionists became the controlling element.2® At Cazenovia, New 
York, a layman offered a resolution that they would refuse to 
receive a preacher appointed by a bishop who had rejected 
resolutions such as had been presented in New England con- 
ference. Gerritt Smith here charged that the Methodist Church 
was a “rum-drinking, pro-slavery Church.” This caused a con- 
troversy between Smith and Peck,. who replied in the Auburn 
Banner. Peck maintains that his opponent retracted what 
he had said about the Church,” but even on the question of 
slavery, Smith had the support of at least one Methodist 
minister.38 Another result of the proscription of conferences 
by these bishops was the increase in the number of anti- 
slavery societies. Many books, pamphlets and circulars — 
amounting, for the year 1837, to 718,267 copies — were pub- 
lished by the Anti-slavery Society.®? 

Several observations may, with full justice, be made on 
the action of the bishops of the Methodist Church during 
these two years. In the first place, there is not one iota 
of evidence to show that any bishop raised the slightest 
objection to any resolution passed by a southern conference 
on slavery and abolition. On the contrary, Bishop Hedding 
refused to entertain a motion condemning Baltimore con- 
ference for their interpretation of the rule. The second 
observation is that the action of Hedding and Waugh, pro- 
scribing conferences and individuals, was a blow at the right 
of free speech. For ministers less bold than Scott and his 
followers there could be no liberty of speech without jeopard- 
izing their standing in the conference. Finally, it may be 
affirmed that, while the immediate result of. the bishops’ 
rulings was wholly favorable to the South, the abolition 
propaganda had been spread tremendously in these two years. 
The Church was on the defensive, and the abolitionists, with 
all the zeal of Crusaders, launched their attacks with the 
greatest energy and skill. 


1. They declared that it was ‘‘the duty of the members of this confer- 
ence wholly to refrain from all abolition measures and movements 
as being incompatible with their duty as ministers of the Lord 
Jesus Chist, and as promoters of the peace and welfare of the 
Church to which they belong.’’ 

2. Zion’s Watchman was condemned because it tended to ‘disturb the 
peace and harmony of the body, by sowing dissensions in the 
Church.”’ 

3. They said that, while a man might have his own opinions on 


13. 


The Rule of the Bishops, 1836-1837 77 


slavery, ‘‘none ought to be elected to the office of a deacon or elder in our 
CHURCH UNLESS he gives 2 PLEDGE to the conference that he 
will refrain from agitating the church with the discussions of this 
subject.” It is to be noted that all young men who sought ad- 
Been into the ranks of the ordained clergy gave the required 
pledge. 

Elliot, the Great Secession, cols. 141-2. Cf. Christian Advocate 
and Journal, Volume X, p. 179, col. 4; July 1, 1836. The resolution 
read that “in the judgment of this conference, it is incompatible 
with the duty which the members owe to the church, as ministers 
for them to be engaged in attending anti-slavery conventions, de- 
livering abolition lectures, or forming anti-slavery societies, either 
in or out of the church, or in any way agitating the subject so 
as to disturb the peace and harmony of the Church and that they 
be, and hereby are affectionately advised and admonished to 
refrain from all these things.’’ 

Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, p. 107. The resolution reads: 
“That in view of all the facts, Brother Scott’s character for truth, 
and veracity, stands fair and unimpeached.’’ 

The decision of the conference was as follows: ‘‘Resolved, That 
bro. Sunderland’s writings have sometimes been unguarded and 
as a matter of course, have had a tendency to mislead the judg- 
ment; and that he be required to correct the misstatements made 
in reference to the General Conference, Doctor Bangs, and the 
New York Conference, and that he be advised to be more guarded 
in future, and that his character pass.”’ 

Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, pp. 109-10. Cf. Norwood, The 
Schism in the Methodist Church, 1844, p. 40; Clark, The Life and 
Times of Hedding, p. 494; and Crawford, The Centennial of New 
England Methodism, p. 210. Parkhurst says that Hedding ‘actually 
exercised his prerogative as the appointing power to discipline 
and humiliate Orange Scott; and only because that man of con- 
science will not promise to close his lips on the subject of aboli- 
tionism.’’ f 

Clark, The Life and Times of Hedding, pp. 495-6. 

Elliott, The Great Secession, cols. 142-3. 


. Clark. The Life and Times of Hedding, pp, 496-8. 
. Gregg, The History of the Erie Conference, Volume I, pp. 3387-9. 
. The statements from the Emancipator are scarcely exaggerated: ‘‘We 


aver, without qualification, that so far as the three great denomi- 
nations (Presbyterian, Congregationalist and Methodist) are con- 
cerned, the AMERICAN CHURCH IS, AT THIS MOMENT, A 
SLAVERY-COUNTENANCING, A SLAVERY-PROTECTING, AND 
A SLAVEHOLDING CHURCH.” (Emancipator, September 8, 1836) 
“Tf Jesus Christ himself were to come here to preach deliverance 
to the captives, they (the Methodists) would turn him out of the 
church. Yet Dr. Fisk will have it, there is no pro-slavery party 
in the Methodist Episcopal Church.’’ (Emancipator, November 24, 
1836) Both extracts are quoted in the Liberator, Volume XII, 
p. 170, col. 5; October 28, 1842. 

Western Christian Advocate; Volume XV, p. 2, cols. 5-6; April 12, 
1848. The minutes of Georgia conference of 1837 are quoted as 
follows: 

“Whereas there is a clause in the Discipline of our Church which 
states that we are as much as ever convinced of the great evil 
of slavery; and whereas the said clause has been perverted by 
some and used in such a manner as to produce the impression 
that the Methodist Episcopal Church believed slavery to be a 
moral evil, 

Therefore, Resolved, That it is the sense of the Georgia annual 
conference, that slavery as it exists in the United States, is not a 
moral evil. 

‘Resolved, That we view slavery as a civil and domestic institu- 
tion, and one which, as ministers of Christ, we have nothing to 
do with, further than to ameliorate the condition of the slave, 
by endeavoring to impart to him and his master the benign 


78 


Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


influences of the religion -of Christ, and aiding them both on 
their way to heaven. 

“On motion, it was Resolved, unanimously, That the Georgia annual 
conference regard with feelings of profound respect and appro- 
bation the dignified course of the several superintendents or bishops 
in suppressing the attempts that have been made by various 
individuals to get up and protract an excitement in the Churches 
and country on the subject of abolitionism.’’ 

Some explanation of this action is offered by a correspondent 
of Zion’s Herald, who wrote that conference members held a very 
high place in the society of the state. “It is this fact, which 
produces the extreme sensitiveness on some matters of domestic 
policy and political doctrines. No man not similarly situated, 
can tell how HE would act, All judicious men would require some 
time for reflection, before they would be willing to array them- 
selves openly against all the leading men in the community, on 
matters of a political nature.’’ (Matlack, History of American 
Slavery and Methodism, pp. 69-70.) 


. Redford, Western Cavaliers, pp. 202-3. 

. Norwood, The Schism in the Methodist Church, 1844, pp. 39-40. 

. Gregg, The History of the Erie Conference, Volume II, p. 45. 

. Conable, The History of the Genesee Conference, Dp. 405. 

. Ibid., pp. 407-10. Cf. Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, pp. 157-8. 
Lee, Autobiography, p. 137. 

. Conable, History of the Genesee Conference, pp. 407-10. ‘‘Such 


practice tends, by necessary consequence, to the destruction of 
mutual confidence, and virtually says to any and every member 
of the Church who is under temptation to gratify a private pique 
against a fellow-member, ‘Go, and do thou likewise.’ Such a 
practice and especially among ministers, cannot but open the sluices 
of such indiscriminate detraction in the Church as will not so 
certainly purify it from the acknowledged evil of slavery, as it 
will provoke a holy God to take his Spirit from us and leave us 
to be the ‘hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean 
and hateful bird.’’ ‘The editor of Zion’s Herald wrote: ‘‘We most 
solemnly believe that a continual controversy on these topics 
will be blasting in its effects to the best interests of the church 
with which we are connected, and which we so ardently love.” 
(Elliot, The Great Secession, col, 177). 


. Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, pp. 133-4. 

MEDIC.) pel b28: 

. Gregg, History of the Erie Conference, Volume II, pp. 46-7. 

. Fradenburgh, History of the Erie Conference, Volume II, pp. 499- 


500. Cf. Gregg, History of the Erie Conference, Volume II, p. 46. 


. Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, pp. 128-31. 

. Mudge, "The History of the New England Conference, p. 286. 
. Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, p. 118. 

. Elliott, The Great Secession, col. 179. 


& Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, pp. 124-6. 

PeLOIe Dou l4 7. 

tebbids pl) 126: 

i Matlack, History of American stevens and Methodism, pp. 57-60. 


. Clark, The Life and Times of Hedding, p. 504. 

. Ibid., pp. 504-65. 

. The Liberator, Volume VII, p. 204, col. 5; December 15, 1837. 

. Elliot, The Great Secession, cols. 172-3. It is to be noted that, 


of Scott’s one thousand members at Lowell, Massachusetts in 
1836-7, seven-eighths were abolitionists, as were all but one of 
his official members. 


. Peck, The Life and Times of G. Peck, p. 193. 
. Long, Pictures of Slavery in Church and State, p. 31. 
. Elliott, The Great Secession, cols. 180-81. It is to be noted that 


an official statement of the American Anti-Slavery Society for 
1836 gives the number of documents as _ 1,095,800. (The Mis- 
sionary Herald, Volume XXXII, p. 263—Year 1836). 


GHAPIER Vil 


THE CRUSHING OF THE ABOLITIONISTS 1838-1839 


The greatest excitement characterized Methodist papers 
and conferences in 1838 and 1839. That which created as 
much bitterness as any other event was the murder of Elijah 
P. Lovejoy at Alton, Illinois Luther Lee, who, until this 
time, had done very little in behalf of the abolition cause, 
preached a sermon in which he condemned the mob and 
vindicated the principles for which Lovejoy had been killed. 
He admitted that he might be censured as an abolitionist, and 
added: “If this is abolitionism, then I am an abolitionist, and 
I would be glad, were it possible, to give my abolitionism a 
thousand tongues, and write it in letters of flame on the 
wings of every wind, to be seen and read of all men.’” 
Scott wrote an article in which he defended Lovejoy and 
urged that the press at Alton be set up again and the fight 
for free speech and a free press continued. Scott was a 
non-resistant but contended that Lovejoy had the right to 
protect himself, by force, if necessary. For this statement 
he was bitterly condemned by the Christian Advocate and 
Journal, which charged that he favored force to protect abol- 
itionism —a charge which was untrue — and attempted to 
show that he was not to be trusted as a leader? Fisk pub- 
lished a statement on the same subject, which condemned the 
abolitionist more than those who murdered him, and put the 
blame on Lovejoy, because he had disregarded the excited 
state of public opinion. The South itself was scarcely more 
bitter against Lovejoy and those who supported him.* 

In almost every northern conference, an exciting struggle 
occurred between abolitionists and conservatives. Due to 
statements which Scott had made relative to the power exer- 
cised by some of the bishops, Hedding preferred charges 
against Scott for lack of Christian sincerity, and using 
“Bishop Hedding and other bishops in an unbrotherly and 
disrespectful manner, unbecoming a Methodist preacher.” 


79 


80 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


But the conference refused to censure Scott, and his char- 
acter was passed. Sunderland was likewise supported by the 
conference. Hedding considered that he had been unjustly 
treated, but he was unable to secure redress until the ensuing 
General Conference, when he hoped that his administration 
would be fully vindicated. : 


The real danger to abolitionists came as a “result of the 
proposal to appoint a committee composed of six abolition- 
ists and six conservatives to consider a “Plan of Pacification” 
which had been outlined by a member of Maine conference.® 
According to this plan, which had the approval of Fisk and 
Bangs, and bishops Soule and Hedding, members of the 
conference would have been completely muzzled’. Garrison 
declared that it was a “cunningly devised scheme, to ensnare 
abolitionists, and induce them to lay their heads in the lap of — 
Delilah, while they could be shorn of their strength by the 
razor of ecclesiastical authority.” The scheme almost suc- 
ceeded. The first vote was 64 to 21 for adoption. Scott 
now exerted himself, and some, who had not voted before, 
voted against the plan, while others changed their votes. 
Finally, the motion for adoption was lost, 64 to 54.8 

On the seventeenth and last day of the conference, Hedd- 
ing announced that he had finished all the business required 
of him, except reading the journal and closing the conference. 
He informed the ministers that he must leave soon in order 
to reach Maine conference in time for the opening session 
and that, if they desired, they might meet for a longer period 
under the presidency of Bishop Soule. The conference 
voted to have the journal and appointments read immed- 
iately.® It was at this juncture that Scott offered resolutions 
on slavery that had already been passed at other conferences. 
Hedding refused to permit a motion for their adoption, al- 
leging that there was insufficient time to consider them. He 
declared that he had promised to read the appointments in 
half an hour and he must keep his word. Three-fourths of 
an hour elapsed before the appointments were read. Then 
he asked the pardon of the conference for not keeping his 
word, and one member “proposed to grant him pardon for 
that, and for taking time enough to adopt the resolutions ; but 
he declined to admit them.’2° Such wrangling accomplished 


The Crushing of the Abolitionists, 1838-1839 81 


no immediate result except to arouse the animosity of abo- 
litionists and conservatives for each other, but it did aid in 
keeping the question of slavery and abolition always in the 
- forefront of discussion. 


Scott’s prediction in 1837 that Maine conference would 
take a strong stand against slavery was doomed to disappoint- 
ment. Immediately after the adjournment of New England 
conference, Scott had an account of his trial and Bishop 
Hedding’s administration during the New England confer- 
ence printed as “Zion’s Herald extra.’ Copies of his state- 
ment were distributed freely among preachers and laymen 
at Maine conference. But Hedding took no notice of his 
propaganda, and abolitionists seem to have accomplished very 
little? On the contrary, the conservatives controlled the 
conference. Much to Garrison’s surprise and grief, the “Plan 
of Pacification” was adopted, 86 to 6. 


When the intractable New Hampshire conference con- 
vened, Scott and Storrs, with other abolitionists, were 
present to use their influence against any compromise on 
slavery. The conference business ran smoothly until it came 
time to examine the character of each minister. At this 
juncture, an abolitionist quietly moved the appointment of 
a committee of five, who should consider the case of each 
minister who had attended the anti-slavery convention at 
Lowell, Massachusetts in October, 1837. This was done to 
give abolitionists an opportunity to speak, which they did for 
about two hours. Every minister who had participated in 
the anti-slavery convention was challenged by another abolit- 
ionist and, after a short discussion, his character was passed. 
When this procedure became tiresome, a resolution was 
adopted, 81 to 1, “That it is the sense of this conference that 
an attendance, on the part of any of its members, on abolition 
conventions, delivering abolition lectures, or circulating 
abolition periodicals, does not involve immorality, or militate 
against his ministerial character.” This resolution was 
agreed to by Bishop Morris so far as the first part was. con- 
cerned, but the second section was pronounced out of order 
“on the ground that it approved what the General Conference 
had condemned”, An appeal was taken from his decision, 
and Morris agreed to put the motion on the appeal, provided 


82 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


his exceptions was entered in the journal. Another motion, 
to publish the resolution, was agreed to by Morris, provided 
his decision and exception were also published.13 


Abolitionists from other conferences seem to have been 
responsible for the strong anti-slavery sentiment in the con- 
ference. July 9, the anti-slavery society of the conference 
condemned plans to stop anti-slavery agitation.* Although 
the “Plan of Pacification” was not brought forward at this 
conference, the society declared: (1) that the pacification 
proposed in other conferences would lead to contention rather 
than peace; (2) that abolitionists who had agreed to the plan 
had sacrificed their principles; and (3) that all Methodists 
should leave the proposed compromise alone.’ From an abo- 
lition viewpoint this was one of the most successful of the 
conferences of that year. 


The slavery issue came before Troy conference through 
the attempt of conservatives to try a brilliant young abolition- 
ist named Spooner. Conservatives rejected all overtures to 
settle the dispute without a trial. It was then that Cyrus 
Prindle, one of the most able men of the conference, an- 
nounced that he would defend Spooner and that the opposi- 
tion might proceed as soon as they desired. Confronted by 
such an advocate, the cowards immediately dropped the case 
and the accused minister’s character was passed.1® 


In Black River conference, Luther Lee was the abolitionist 
marked for slaughter. An anti-slavery convention, held at 
Utica, New York, had appointed Lee to represent anti- 
slavery Methodists at the Conference of the Canada Wes- 
leyan Church. The Conference refused to receive him 
officially inasmuch as he was not the delegate of the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church. Jesse T. Peck and two other official 
delegates assured the Canadians that it would greatly offend 
their Church if Lee were officially recognized.!? 


It was for making these statements in Zion's Herald — 
for the Christian Advocate and Journal refused to admit 
them — that Lee was accused in Black River conference, and 
the approval of his character delayed. He was given until 
the following morning to prepare his defense and he deter- 
mined to fight to the bitter end. But when the trial was 
ready to start, Peck withdrew his charges and Lee’s char- 
acter was passed. Peck declared that “he had been pressed 


The Crushing of the Abolitionists, 1838-1839 83 


and overborne by the leading members of the Conference, 
who had urged him to this course.” Since this attempt to 
cripple Lee had failed, martyrdom must be sought in another 
direction. In spite of the fact that Lee had a large family 
to support and, was one of the ablest preachers of the con- 
ference, Bishop Morris appointed him to Oswego, where both 
Church and people were in financial straits as a result of 
the panic of 1837. Lee refused to go and obtained a 
location.1® 

The resolutions of Oneida conference seem to have 
favored the radicals; at least no action was taken to “vindi- 
cate the Church” or denounce abolitionists.1® The sessions 
of Genesee conference at Elmira, New York, were more 
exciting. On the second day, the anti-slavery society met for 
the anniversary program, but the preacher in charge at 
Elmira informed the abolitionists that a public meeting to 
discuss slavery would give great offense to trustees and 
members of his church. The society therefore adjourned to 
Clinton Island, near by. Village authorities warned them 
not to hold a second meeting, and when they persisted, a 
mob attacked the ministers. On the following day, the con- 
ference condemned the mob but also adopted a resolution in 
which they censured the anti-slavery meeting as “unjusti- 
fiable and highly improper” since they had been advised and 
warned by the village authorities not to carry out their 
program. They also declared that this act on the part of 
the abolitionists was “calculated to dishonor the character of 
the gospel ministry in general, and to lower the dignity of 
this Conference in particular.’’° 


Intense excitement also marked Erie conference which 
convened at Painesville, Ohio. The conference disclaimed 
“all intention of interfering with any man’s opinions,” and 
quoted the Discipline to show their opposition to slavery; 
but they declared “it incompatible with the duties and obli- 
gations of Methodist preachers to spend their time delivering 
abolition lectures, contributing to the getting up of abolition 
conventions, or in circulating abolition papers.” John J. 
Steadman won the approval of conservatives, of whom the 
bishop was one, by his powerful advocacy of the resolution. 
The conservatives were entirely successful, the resolution 
being adopted, 36 to 30.7! 


84 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


Two ministers were brought to trial under this ruling. 
J. S. Barris was charged with insubordination to the consti- 
tuted authorities of the Church, and with participation in 
anti-slavery programs. He had been disobedient to the ad- 
vice of the General Conference of 1836; and had arranged 
for, and presided at an abolition meeting, and given an aboli- 
tion sermon in a Congregational church. He was also tried 
because he had given the preachers of New Castle Circuit 
permission to attend an abolition convention at Utica, New 
York. A compromise was effected, after which Barris was 
admonished by the bishop, by order of the conference, to 
refrain from agitating the question. His character was then 
passed.22. The second preacher was much more defiant. 
Benjamin Preston was charged with having compared the 
proceedings of New York conference to a Roman inquisi- 
tion; with saying that he would lecture and circulate aboli- 
tion papers as much as possible and “the conference might 
help itself if it could;”’ with aiding an anti-slavery society 
in Monroe Village, although he was urged not to do so; and 
with “desecrating the Sabbath by delivering abolition lectures 
thereon.” Preston admitted all the charges except that 
deliverance of abolition lectures on Sunday was a desecration 
of the Sabbath. He was pronounced guilty and deprived of 
his parchment and suspended for one year. The following 
evening, a large audience assembled to hear Preston’s de- 
fense. He denounced the action of the conference and 
compared it with a Roman inquisition.** 

As has been intimated, New York conference was decidedly 
conservative. Scott preferred charges against Dr. Bangs for 
attacks upon him in the press to the injury of his character 
and influence but Bangs’ character was passed.24 On the 
other hand, three members of the conference were suspended 
because of their connection with the anti-slavery program. 
The indictment was that they had attended the anti-slavery 
convention at Utica, which was deemed “unauthorized, 
schismatic, and revolutionary,” and that they had acted con- 
trary to the advice of the General Conference to all preachers 
“wholly to refrain from all abolition movements and associa- 
tions.” They were also censured for writing for abolition 
papers. Luther Lee was their counsel, but it was apparent, 
even before the trial began, that they were to be convicted. 


The Crushing of the Abolitionists, 1838-1839 85 


They were re-instated only when they promised to cease 
agitating the slavery question. Two others conformed to the 
wishes of the conference and were not suspended. The 
determination of the conference to destroy all remnants of 
abolitionism was also shown in the attempt to send David 
Plumb to a poor circuit because he was an abolitionist. He 
refused to go and the following year was expelled from the 
conference. The conference also condemned Zion’s Watch- 
man and prohibited ministers acting as its agents. Finally, 
resolutions were adopted recommending the Colonization 
Society to the people, and forbidding ministers to attend 
anti-slavery meetings, form anti-slavery societies, or give 
lectures against slavery. The resolutions concluded by 
stating ; “It is ardently to be hoped, therefore, that within the 
bounds of the New York Annual Conference, the churches 
will have peace.’’?° 

Just what some Methodists thought of these proceedings 
may be surmised from the statement of one writer, “Disciple 
of Wesley.” After declaring that the large churches were 
rapidly becoming more iniquitous in character than ever be- 
fore, he cited the action of the Presbyterian General Assem- 
bly which refused to permit the discussion of slavery. Then, 
turning to the Methodists, he asserted that the New York 
conference of 1838 had emulated their “man-stealing con- 
federates in their usurpation over the rights of conscience, 
and their unrighteous opposition to their own avowed doc- 
trines and discipline.’’”6 

The frontier Michigan conference was established in 1836. 
For two years the slavery question was not discussed because 
abolitionists were few in number, and the majority were not 
prepared to censure them. But in 1838 the abolitionists in 
the Church were condemned; action was taken against aboli- 
tion lectures; and Zion’s Watchman was declared “anti- 
methodistical in its general course.” Pressure was also 
brought to bear upon those members who urged their people 
to subscribe for abolition papers rather than for those which 
had the Church’s official sanction.?? 

Not only were there trials of ministers, but anti-slavery 
laymen were also condemned. The case of one Brown of 
Auburn, New York, is typical. In February, 1839, he was 
charged with misrepresentation, slander and falsehood. The 


86 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


specifications under the first charge will indicate the char- 
acter of the whole. “Specification 1: Saying that the meet- 
ing at the organization of the Wesleyan Anti-slavery Society 
was numerously attended. Specification 2: Saying that the 
doctrine had recently been set up that when ministers become 
members of an Annual Conference they surrender the keep- 
ing of their consciences to that body, and that members yield 
to the Church or minister the keeping of that sacred trust.” 
All members who had attended the anti-slavery prayer-meet- 
ing in which the statements were made, were declared dis- 
qualified to try this case.» Even then, Brown was acquitted 
on all the charges brought against him except the second 
specification given above, but this was sufficient to secure his 
expulsion from the Church.?°, 

Conservatives also did everything possible to prevent aboli- 
tionists from speaking against slavery. At Auburn, New 
York, the Methodist minister refused to permit Luther Lee 
to preach, although he had formerly been a pastor there. 
Thereupon, the Presbyterian minister invited him to speak in 
his church against slavery. Very few attended the Methodist 
services. At Warsaw, in the same state, he encountered a 
presiding elder who refused him permission to speak except — 
at two o'clock in the afternoon. Lee humorously declares 
that the elder, Mr. Alverson, “sung long meter, prayed long 
meter, administered the sacrament long meter, and by the 
time he got through with all these long meters it was two 
o’clock.”” Alverson had undoubtedly hoped that the audience, 
wearied with his pious “long meters’ would depart and thus 
leave Lee without an audience, But in spite of the disad- 
vantages of the hour, a large number remained to hear him. 
That evening Lee had his revenge. All the people who 
attended church, with the exception of nine, heard Lee at 
the Congregational church on the subject of slavery. Of the 
nine who attended divine worship at the Methodist church, 
one had been sent by Lee to count the rest.27? At Middle- 
town, Connecticut, the Methodist minister refused to permit 
the bell of his church to be rung to announce an anti-slavery 
meeting in the Congregational church. The people became 
so indignant at this lack of courtesy, which had always been 
extended on other occasions, that enough money for a new 
bell for the Congregationalists was quickly subscribed. The 


The Crushing of the Abolitionists, 1838-1839 87 


Methodist minister, Mr. Hodgson, then challenged Lee to a 
debate on slavery, but at the time set, Hodgson failed to 
appear.°° 

Lee and Scott also encountered considerable opposition 
from within the abolition ranks. Some anti-slavery advo- 
cates, including Garrison and Wendell Phillips, advocated 
women’s rights and non-resistance, Lee endeavored to get 
control of the anti-slavery meetings in order to guide the 
organization’s policy.2! His attitude towards the new doc- 
trines of Garrison and Phillips was the same as that of 
Orange Scott. The latter once declared that he hoped no 
Methodist would “sustain that rotten-hearted, no-human 
government, women’s rights institution, called the Massa- 
chusetts Anti-slavery Soctety.’?? 

Favorite instruments of abolitionists were anti-slavery con- 
ventions and the press. One of the most important of these 
conventions was held at Utica, New York. Here, the dele- 
gates asserted that countenancing a known sin was dishonor- 
able to ministers and to the cause of Christ; and that the 
““Deace of the church’ cannot be endangered by an inflexible 
adherence to the great principles of righteousness.” They 
believed that a minister’s acts were public property, and said 
they would not refrain from criticism. They declared that 
they respected ministers, but repudiated the “idea that they 
are the church—infallible in judgment,—or authorized to 
suppress any portion of God’s truth.” Finally, they resolved 
that “the aspect of the times indicates the necessity at an 
early day, of a convention of lay members of the M. E., 
Church, at some central point, to take into consideration the 
course proper to be pursued by them in order to secure the 
freedom of speech and an untrammeled ministry.”*? 

Zion's Watchman, the abolition organ, was viciously at- 
tacked from all sides. Conferences passed resolutions of 
condemnation; the editor was hailed before the Court of 
General Sessions in Lexington County, New York, but was 
acquitted; and four times was he compelled to stand trial 
before New England conference. In most instances, the 
prosecution was conducted by a member of New York con- 
ference. Perhaps the extraordinary liberality with which the 
Watchman was sent, gratis, to members of this conference 
may account for resolutions against Sunderland, the editor, 


88 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


and Merritt, his associate. Sunderland declared that never 
had official Methodist papers supported him or his cause.*4 

At least one other Church viewed the struggle of Metho- 
dist abolitionists and conservatives with the most intense 
interest, but there was no sympathy expressed for radicals. 
The Boston Olive Branch believed that the Methodist Church 
was resting on a mine which might explode at any moment. 
Church leaders who sought to stem the abolition tide, which 
seemed about to sweep everything before it, were very highly 
commended, Sunderland, Scott and other abolitionists were 
condemned for having caused all the trouble and for desiring 
a schism in the Church. It was even proclaimed that these 
men were seeking a division of the Church so that they 
might be bishops in the new organization. The writer said 
he would rather go to Russia than live under their adminis- 
tration. He claimed, concerning Sunderland’s work in New 
England, that “his track was desolation,” and that abolition- 
ists were “scattering arrows, firebrands and death. We will 
hope and pray that such madness may never seize on Protes- 
tant Methodists.’’® 


The southern attitude towards Methodist abolitionists may 
be imagined. One southern correspondent advised the editor 
of Zion’s Watchman to take care of poor whites in the North 
and leave negroes alone. He warned Sunderland not to come 
into southern territory with abolition missionaries. He 
asserted that political disunion was threatened unless the 
propaganda of abolitionists ceased.25 Another writer urged 
the advisability of a separation of the South from the North. 
He also protested against the sending of “accursed fire 
brands,” “infernal publications” and “hellish productions” to 
the South.3® - William Capers raised his voice against the 
abolitionism of such papers as Zion’s Herald as tending to 
infidelity, and at the same time defended slavery because it 
promoted the welfare of slaves.27 Capers was fully sup- 
ported by the southern pro-slavery party. It was about this 
time that a meeting of slaveholders in Mississippi declared 
that any person who circulated abolition papers in the state 
was “justly worthy, in the sight of God and man, of 
IMMEDIATE DEATH.”. They also demanded that clergy- 
men of the state take a stand on slavery. In answer to this 
ultimatum, a Methodist publication of the commonwealth 


The Crushing of the Abolitiontsts, 1838-1839 89 


“announced that it would ‘recognize the right of man to 
hold property in man.’ 38 

It has been abundantly proved that conservatives and 
southerners were not very considerate of the feelings of 
anti-slavery Methodists. But conservatives affirm that aboli- 
tionists also overstepped the bounds of propriety again and 
again in their zeal to destroy the power of their opponents. 
Clark, writing of the period just before the General Confer- 
ence of 1840, says that “generally a cloud of lecturers hung 
about the path of Bishop Hedding, perverting and misrep- 
resenting his acts and character.” He adds that Hedding 
became “the butt of their ridicule; and in some of their 
lectures a mock slave-auction was enacted, and Bishop 
Hedding and his wife in burlesque sold as slaves.’’*9 

During these two years, the most persistent attempts had 
been made to crush abolitionists. The full power of the 
Church had been called out to destroy all opposition to the 
program which had been agreed upon at the General Confer- 
ence of 1836. Official Methodist papers were always against 
abolitionism; conferences, with a few notable exceptions, 
supported the General Conference program; and bishops 
sought to weaken the abolitionists at every opportunity. 
They refused to permit anti-slavery motions to be voted 
upon, and attempted to send many an abolitionist to an 
undesirable appointment. When these methods failed, they 
resorted to trials and compelled refractory ministers to sub- 
mit or had them expelled from their conferences.4? The 
most serious charge that can be brought against bishops and 
conferences, however, is not that they discountenanced aboli- 
tionism and supported either the conservative or the pro- 
slavery program, but that they denied to American citizens 
their constitutional rights of free speech and peaceable as- 
sembly. Undoubtedly, the abolitionists had greatly multiplied 
since 1836. Temporarily, the Church forces were highly 
successful ; ultimately, conservative and pro-slavery partizans 
must fail because they denied the “satellites of Hedding’* 
and their followers the fundamental rights of American 
citizens.** 


1. Elliott, The Great Secession, col. 181. Lovejoy was murdered, 
November ACTER E 
2. Lee, Autobiography, pp. 137-8. 


90 


a CO 


17. 


18. 
19. 
20. 
21. 


Eptcopal Methodism and Slavery 


Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, pp. 150-53. 

The Southern Christian Advocate printed an article on Lovejoy, the 
conclusion of which reads: ‘‘Mobs and riots are the veritable 
daughters of abolition. Fruits which no other tree produces, or 
can produce, in the slaveholding states. And whoever he be that. 
has suffered in these states by them, he has suffered under a 
strong conviction in the public mind that he was an incendiary, 
plotting against the peace of society, and unworthy of the protec- 
tion of the laws. A Martyr indeed!” (The Liberator, Volume 
Vill, p.. 17, col. 1; February 2, 1838). 

Clark, Life and Times of Hedding, pp. 522-7. Hedding charged 
Sunderland ‘‘(1) with treating him in a scurrilous manner; (2) 
with publishing against him an injurious falsehood; (3) with pub- 
lishing a false conjecture respecting the bishops; (4) with report- 
ing a falsehood; and (5) with misrepresentation.”’ 

Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, p. 159. 

The provisions of the “‘Plan’’ were as follows: (1) ‘‘Never attack 
an officer, clergyman, or private member” in public journals or 
in lectures. Everything was to be left to the regular procedure 
of the Church. It would be proper to have a ‘‘courteous investi- 
gation of principles and opinions.’’ (2) Ministers must not leave 
their proper work to lecture on this or any other subject without 
the sanction of the proper authorities of the Church; (3) No 
paper was to be established ostensibly to aid the anti-slavery 
movement, which used a name peculiar to the Church. (4) They 
were opposed to anti-slavery organizations using names peculiar 
to Methodists. (5) Ministers and laymen might connect themselves 
with anti-slavery societies if such action were not contrary to 
the terms of this agreement. (6) Prayers might be offered for 
master and slave. ‘“‘But we recommend that Apostolic language 
be used, so far as may be, in such devotions.’ (7) Preachers 
could read and explain the rules of the Church. (8) Members 
were granted the right to petition the General Conference on the 
subject of slavery. (9) ‘‘Nevertheless, in all circumstances relat- 
ing to the above, we recommend to our preachers and people to 
exercise ‘the wisdom of the serpent and the harmlessness of 
the dove.’ ”’ (The Liberator, Volume VIII, p. 123, cols. 1-2; 
August 3, 1838. 

The Liberator, Volume VIII, p. 123, col. 2; August 3, 1838. 
Clark, Life and Times of Hedding, pp. 527-8. 


. Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, pp. 157-8. 

. Clark, The Life and Times of Hedding, p. 528. 

. Allen and Pilsbury, Methodism in Maine, pp. 110-11. 

. Clark, The Life and Times of Hedding, pp. 528-30. 

. Elliott, The Great Secession, pp. 195-6. 

. The Liberator, Volume VIII, p. 123. col. 2; August 8, 1838. 

. Lee, Autobiography, pp. 156-7. The conference was divided into 


two hostile camps, of which the conservative was the stronger. 
The Rev. Guy Beckley, writing to Zion’s Herald, declared that one 
of these conservatives asserted that ‘‘abolitionism was ‘to take a 
nigger ON your back, and run over the Advocate and Journal — the 
Bishops and General Conference, trampling them all under foot.’ ”’ 
(The Liberator, Volume VIII, p. 123, col. 3; August 3, 1838). 

In regard to what happened at the Conference, the statements of 
Lee and Peck disagree. Peck says that Lee arrived and departed 
before the former came; Lee denies this assertion and insists 
that he made a speech representing all of the Americans. Lee 
also says that Peck and the other ‘‘orthodox’’ Methodists were there 
two days before he arrived and poisoned the minds of the Canad- 
ians against him, 

Lee, Autobiography, pp. 162-6. 

Peck, The Life and Times of G. Peck, p. 195. 

Conable, History of the Genesee Conference, pp. 427-30. 

Gregg, Methodism within the Bounds of the Erie Conference, Vol- 
ume Il, pp. 75-6. The resolution reads: ‘‘That while it (the con- 
ference) does disclaim all intention of interfering with any 
man’s opinion’s and while, as the Discipline says, ‘We are as 


22. 
23. 


24. 
25. 


The Crushing of the Abolitionists, 1838-1839 91 


much as ever convinced of the great evil of slavery’: we judge it 
incompatible with the duties and obligations of Methodist preachers 
to spend their time in delivering abolition lectures, contributing 
to the getting up of abolition conventions, or in circulating aboli- 
tion papers.’’ 

Gregg, Methodism within the Bounds of the Erie Conference, 
Volume II, pp. 76-8. 

Ibid., pp. 78-80. The indictment was as follows: 

“First, For saying that the proceedings of the New York Con- 
ference at its last session was unrighteous and unjust, and equal 
to a Roman inquisition, and he would as leave see the persecu- 
tions under the reign of Queen Mary revived as such proceedings, 
and that the devil was at the bottom of it. 

“Second, For saying that in reference to his abolition movements 
he would lecture as much as he pleased, and circulate ‘Zion’s 
Watchman’ as much as he could, and the conference might help 
itself if it could. 

“Third, For making exertions in favor of an abolition meeting 
in Monroe Village, to the injury of the Methodist society in that 
place, although earnestly requested not to do so. 

“Fourth, For desecrating the Sabbath by delivering abolition 
lectures thereon.’’ 

The proceedings of Erie conference were very displeasing to 
many laymen of the conference, but few severed their connection 
with the Church at that time. Barris withdrew from the Church 
after the adjournment of conference, as did Isaac Winans. These, 
together with Ensign Hill and Benjamin Preston, organized the 
“Congregational Consociation.” When that organization fell to 
pieces, some of the members united with the Wesleyan Methodists. 
(Ibid., pp. 96-8. Cf. Fradenburgh, History of the Hrie Conference, 
Volume II, pp. 502-4) The ‘Congregational Consociation’’ was 
probably similar to the Congregational Church, but, so far as is 
known, there was no connection between them. 

Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, p. 139. 

The Liberator, Volume VIII, p. 91, col. 2; June 8, 1838. Cf. 
Faulkner, The Methodists, p. 166. Garrison called the conference 
a “popish conclave’ and ‘“recreants to the cause of God and 
humanity,’ and censured unsparingly those who had basely for- 
saken the abolitionists. He declared that there would be “no rest 
or peace for the wicked, whether ecclesiastical or civil despots.”’ 


. The Liberator, Volume VIII, p. 91, col. 2; June 8, 1838. 
. Matlack, History of American Slavery and Methodism, pp. 194, 


197-9. Matlack states that the abolitionists did not number a 
single itinerant minister in their ranks. ‘‘When Zion’s Watchman 
was first published and sent gratis to many of the northern 
preachers, a few of this class in this State professed to be aboli- 
tionists, and blustered a little in its support, but at their annual 
conference of 1838, the anti-abolition screws were brought to 
bear upon them, and they basely submitted, and that has been 
the last of the abolition in this body of ministers. From that day 
to this (1849), not‘one member of the Michigan Annual Conference 
of the M. E. Church has been known, in any public manner, to 
identify himself with the abolitionists of this State.” 


. Lee, Autobiography, pp. 179-88. 
. Ibid., pp. 190-91. 
. Ibid., pp. 212-14. Lee gives many examples of the work of mobs 


and their refusal to permit free discussion if they couid prevent 
it. Many times they showed themselves very cowardly when face 
to face with Lee. (Ibid., pp. 224-5.) 

Ibid., pp. 217-18. 


. Elliott, The Great Secession, col, 201. 
. The Liberator, Volume VIII, p. 118, cols. 4-5; July 27, 1838. 
_ Zion’s Watchman, Volume IV, p. 206, col. 4; December 28, 1839. 


Said Sunderland: ‘We say, during the whole of this time, not a single 
Methodist E. paper has attempted to advocate our cause, or expressed, so far 
as we know, a word of sympathy for the paper that has been the object of such 


92 


35. 
36. 


37. 
38. 
39 


40. 


41. 
42. 


Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


AN EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNT OF ECCLESIASTICAL CEN- 
SURE AND OPPOSITION!”’ 

The Liberator, Volume VIII., p. 73, col 1; May 11, 1838. 

Ibid., p. 74, col. 4. The extract is taken from the Emancipator: ‘‘You 
will please do us the particular favor to send no more of your 
accursed firebrands to this place. Brother Roach has sent several] 
of your infernal publications back to you; so that you must know 
his wish on the subject. Brother Mont. Oldham has returned 
several of these hellish productions.’’ The Emancipator commented: 
“The anxiety of such men to dissolve the Union reminds us of 
the anxiety of the drunkard who has the horrors, to die. They 
feel so bad, that they don’t consider what will be their condition 
after a change.’’ 

Elliott, The Great Secession, col. 203. 

Jay, Miscellaneous Writings on Slavery, p. 412. 

Clark, Life and Times of Hedding, p. 533. While it is a fact that 
no abolitionist, so far as I am aware, admits doing anything of 
this kind, yet it is not difficult to believe that such indignities 
were perpetrated. 

It seems impossible that northern conferences would have been so 
zealous against abolitionists had it not been for the active support 
of the bishops. For an example of the influence of a bishop ona 
conference, see supra, p. 83. 

The phrase was suggested by a student, Miss Nelle Jones. 

It is significant that the attempt to deny free speech and the right 
of assembly to Methodist abolitionists came at the same time that 
a similar attempt was made to deprive the people of the country : 
of the right to petition Congress against slavery. (See Hart, 
Slavery and Abolition, pp. 270-71). 

The effect of slavery on the churches is set forth by a keen 
observer from the Halcyon Church as follows: ‘‘And moreover, 
slavery in southern churches exerts a deleterious influence upon 
those connected with them in the north, and prevents the latter 
from bearing testimony against it, for fear of division: pro-slavery 
clergymen in both sections, using their moral power and talents, 
to prove it a divine institution; attempting to make it identical 
with Jewish servitude, and sanctioned by Apostolic precept. All 
these and many other reasons were assigned by the abolitionists to 
justify agitating the subject in free States.’’ (Parker, Autobio- 
graphy, p. 161). He says that the Methodists in an earlier time 
‘‘were like all new sects; persecuted by the more popular churches; 
but now they are ‘rich and increased in goods, and have need of 
nothing.’ *’ (ibid., p. 47). The Halcyon Church was a small band 
in Ohio with tenets similar to those of the Unitarian Church. 


CHAPTER VIII 


THE METHODIST JUGGERNAUT 


Months before the delegates assembled at Baltimore, it 
was apparent to all competent observers that there would be 
a struggle on the slavery issue in the General Conference 
of 1840. Previous to the Conference, two very important 
considerations were before annual conferences:! (1) the 
proposal to change the General Rule on Slavery; and (2) 
the choice of delegates to the General Conference. Results 
in both instances indicated the sentiment of conferences and 
the Church as a whole, perhaps more accurately than any 
other action that was taken. 


In 1838, New England conference proposed to change the 
Rule on Slavery so that it would forbid “The buying or 
selling; or holding men, women or children as slaves, under 
any circumstances, or giving them away unless on purpose 
to free them.” The bishops were requested to present the 
resolution to all the conferences for their concurrence.2, New 
Hampshire conference approved the proposed change,’ but 
all other northern as well as southern conferences, rejected it. 
In fact, only two conferences - Genesee* and Ohio® - gave 
more than five votes in favor of the resolution, Ohio 
conference non-concurred by a vote of 130 to 10,5 while 
the equally reactionary Erie conference rejected the change, 
86 to 3.8 

In 1838, Kentucky conference declared their opposition 
to the change of the Rule suggested by New England con- 
ference. Bishop Waugh asserted that, while he was 
opposed to slavery, he was also opposed to abolitionism 
and the resolution under consideration because he believed it 
to be “revolutionary and injurious.” He rebuked New 
England conference as he submitted the resolution, and 
expressed the opinion that “the union of the Church would 
be imperilled.”* Undoubtedly, conferences further south 
would have agreed to the statement of Dr. Capers, in the 
Southern Christian Advocate, when he said that the change 


93 


94 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


proposed by northern abolitionists was an “offensive alter- 
ation of our General Rule. It is very doubtful, to our 
minds, though we would not interfere with our General 
Rules, whether it is not absolutely necessary for the south- 
ern portion of the Church to expunge every word of 
ection SAanibart te ve 

Southern conferences could be depended upon to send 
anti-abolition delegates to the General Conference of 1840. 
In northern conferences there was some opposition to the 
conservative party, but in only two conferences — New Eng- 
land and New Hampshire — were anti-slavery delegations 
sent to Baltimore. So strong was the opposition to abolition- 
ists that Orange Scott and other radicals predicted that the 
General Conference would cut off abolition conferences, as 
well as members of the General Conference who were of the 
anti-slavery party. Scott wrote: “I have no expectation 
that the Church will all remain together after the next 
General Conference. There will either be a split between 
the North and South, or such measures will be adopted as 
will render it inconvenient and inconsistent for the aboli- 
tionists to remain in the Church.’® That the fears of 
abolitionists were not groundless is demonstrated by the 
fact that Fisk and Bangs asserted the right of the General 
Conference to cut off an annual conference from the 
Church.19 The anti-slavery party insisted that if such a 
separation were decreed, the blame would rest with pro- 
slavery and conservative leaders rather than with abolition- 
ists.19 | 

At the very beginning of the General Conference, two 
addresses immediately made the slavery issue of para- 
mount interest. In their Quadrennial Address, the bishops 
singled out the New England conferences for censure be- 
cause of their radicalism, and commended the conservative 
conferences. It was asserted that many ministers who were 
personally abolitionists refused to approve the radical pro- 
gram because they “clearly perceived that the success of 
the measures would result in the division of the Church.” 
It was held that the position of the Church on this question 
was that of the founders of American Methodism, and that 
exceptions had always been made in case of a slaveholder 
who was unable to free his slaves because of the laws of 
the state in which he resided. The bishops advised that 


The Methodist Juggernaut 95 


no change in the General Rule on Slavery be made, and 
appealed to the members of the Conference to consider 
the nation’s welfare and stop the agitation of the slavery 
question. They asked for an interpretation of the rule so 
that uniformity might result in all sections of the country; 
and they also requested the Conference to define the rights 
of bishops in annual conferences." 

Another important address at the beginning of the Con- 
ference was that of Dr. Watson, who represented the 
British Wesleyan Methodist Conference. In this document 
the British Church asked that the General Conference con- 
tinue to be anti-slavery.17. The reply of the Conference 
was practically the same as the statement of the bishops. 
They closed, however, by quoting the instructions of the 
English Methodist Missionary Society to its workers in the 
West Indies before slavery was abolished. English mission- 
aries were told that their only business was to “promote 
the moral and religious improvement of the slaves’ without 
regard to “their civil condition.” The vote for adoption was 
114 to 18.8 


The counter-attack of abolitionists began on May 2 when 
Orange Scott presented the first anti-slavery petition. Im- 
mediately there was a call for the appointment of a committee 
to whom all such memorials should be referred. Of the 
twenty-eight members, only four were abolitionists.14 Dur- 
ing the Conference, Scott presented petitions from New 
England conference, New York City, and some thirty other 
places. That from New York City threw the delegates into 
the greatest excitement. It was signed by eleven hundred 
fifty-four members of the Methodist Church of that city. 
Dr. Bangs immediately started an investigation and even sent 
the petition to New York, where a committee of thirty 
conservatives made a canvas and reported that the memorial 
contained many frauds and forgeries, and that eight hundred 
thirteen signers were women.’* The attempt seems to have 
been made to prove that Scott was untrustworthy, but he 
immediately disavowed all intention to deceive, and declared 
that he was given the petition by one whom he thought could 
be trusted. He affirmed that while some of the names might 
not be those of members, yet probably most of them were 
and these ought not to be discarded with the rest. Scott 
declared that if there were fraud and corruption connected 


96 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


with the New York petition he wanted it fully known, and 
moved that all documents bearing on the question at issue be 
published in the Christian Advocate and Journal. The Bishop 
ruled that the motion was not in order and refused to put it 
to a vote.16 

Bangs hoped that the “foul stigma’ against the good name 
of New York had been removed and asked that the document 
which Scott had presented might be referred to the Com- 
mittee on Slavery. William Smith moved that the report 
on slavery be re-committed because of the morning’s dis- 
closures so that the cothmittee might “impart a different 
complexion to that report.” An attempt on the part of Scott 
to get possession of the New York petition failed, Smith 
assigning as a reason that Scott could not be trusted with it. 
Pierce of Georgia urged the expulsion of Scott from the 
Generali Conference.}* 

The Committee on Slavery reported on May 14 and asked 
that they be discharged from the consideration of the question 
referred to them, but the request was denied. Five days 
later the Committee, of which Nathan Bangs was chairman, 
made the following report asthe judgment of the Conference: 


“Ist. That it is inexpedient to express any opinion, or 
to adopt any measure to control or modify slavery as 
it exists in the United States, other than those now 
recognized in our book of Discipline. 

“2d. That the General Conference, in its legislative 
capacity, has no authority to expound the general rules 
of the Discipline. 

“3d. That it is to be regretted that annual conferences 
have, in some instances, expressed conflicting opinions 
on the item of slavery in the general rules, and on 
the subject generally, and considering the great deli- 
cacy of this subject, as well as the necessity of union 
among ourselves, it is the will of the General Con- 
ference that the annual conferences, in their action 
upon this subject in the future, should closely adhere 
to the language of the Discipline as it now stands.”}® 


A spirited debate followed the introduction of this report. 
Even the hostile Christian Advocate and Journal acknowl- 
edged that Scott presented his side of the case with great 
ability and power. Likewise, leading southerners eloquently 
set forth their position. But conservatives met with the 


The Methodist Juggernaut 97 


scorn, not only of abolitionists but also of pro-slavery dele- 
gates. So lukewarm were most northern delegates that Smith 
of Virginia demanded that they go on record as to whether 
slavery was moral evil. He affirmed that if it were, Scott 
was right and that he would defend him. While the Con- 
ference was undoubtedly favorable to the sentiments ex- 
pressed by the Committee, no motion to adopt the report 
seems to have been carried.1? 


As a result of the refusal of New England conference to 
condemn Scott and Sunderland at the request of Bishop 
Hedding, the latter reported his grievance to the General 
Conference. These two abolitionists were accused of ill- 
‘treating the bishop in the New England conferences, and 
through the columns of Zion’s Watchman, The case was, 
on motion of Nathan Bangs, referred to a special committee 
of five, at least three of whom were northern men, and all 
friendly to the course of the bishops. Two weeks later, the 
committee reported that everything had been “amicably 
settled.’’2° 


The report of the Committee on Itinerancy*! was presented 
a few days after the settlement between Hedding and the 
abolitionists. Scott, Sunderland and New England con- 
ference were severely handled. Horton, of New England 
conference, moved that this section be tabled, but the motion 
was lost. On the following day, however, the whole pre- 
amble, in which New England conference was censured, was 
stricken out. This may have been due to the proposal of 
Dodge that the report be amended so that exception would be 
taken to the resolution of Georgia conference that slavery 
was not a moral evil. A debate ensued, and his motion was, 
as a matter of course, tabled. The administration of the 
bishops during the previous four years was heartily com- 
mended. In connection with the request of the bishops that 
their rights in annual conferences be defined, the Committee 
recommended that they be given absolute power to make 
any decision, subject only to the will of the General Confer- 
ence. They might even adjourn an annual conference when- 
ever they pleased. This extraordinary grant of power was 
made by a vote of 98 to 5. 

Two special cases engaged the attention of the General 
Conference. The first was that of Rev. Silas Comfort of 
Missouri conference. He was charged with mal-administra- 


98 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


tion because, in a church trial, he had received the testimony 
of a negro. He had been convicted by Missouri conference 
and, on appeal, his case came before the General Conference. 
Bishop Soule introduced resolutions in which it was asserted 
that the Conference were of the opinion that the mistakes 
of Comfort were simply errors of judgment, and advised 
that his character be passed and that the decision of Missouri 
conference be reversed. These resolutions were agreed to, 
97 to 27. 23 May 18, I. A. Few proposed a resolution which 
read: “Resolved, That it is inexpedient and unjustifiable, 
for preachers among us, to permit colored persons to give 
testimony against white persons, in any State where they 
are denied that privilege in trials at law.” The adoption of 
this resolution, by a vote of 74 to 46, drew a protest from 
the negroes in Baltimore churches,?* but a statement of 
Bishop Soule seems to have satisfied them.”® 

The second case was that of Westmoreland district of 
Baltimore conference. This district was in Virginia and the 
annual conference had refused to elect to ordination local 
preachers from that section simply because they were slave- 
holders. A special committee, of which H. B. Bascom?® was 
a member, reviewed the case and set forth the peculiar condi- 
tions in Virginia which did not permit emancipation except 
in very rare instances. They declared that the Discipline pro- 
tected ministers under such conditions.27 The committee 
proposed a resolution, which was readily adopted, that the 
holding of slaves in a southern state constituted “no legal 
barrier to the election or ordination of ministers to the va- 
rious grades of office known in the ministry of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, and cannot, therefore, be considered as 
operating any forfeiture of right in view of such election 
and ordination.’’28 


One incident during this General Conference shows the 
spirit of anti-slavery delegates. Delegates from Mississippi 
conference appealed for funds for the Methodist church at 
Natchez which had been partially destroyed by a storm. In 
response, members of the Conference contributed about one 
thousand dollars to aid in the restoration of the building. 
But abolitionists refused to assist in this enterprise lest they 
should appear to be supporting slavery. Cartwright says 
that this demonstrated “a wrong and fanatical spirit” on their - 


The Methodist Juggernaut 99 


part, and added that “their consciences, for solidity and 
rotundity, very much resembled a ram’s horn.’’® 


One of the most interesting and important items of bus- 
iness in any General Conference is the election of bishops. 
In 1840, the Committee on Episcopacy recommended the 
election of two new bishops. The majority of the delegates 
were strongly in favor of the southern viewpoint that slavery 
should be no bar to any office in the Church, while Scott and 
his followers were opposed to the election of a slaveholder 
to any office in the gift of the Conference or even to member- 
ship in the Church. Cartwright feared that this election 
would cause a further struggle between the various factions. 
With the help of conservatives, he was able to defeat the 
plan to elect bishops at that General Conference. Cartwright 
credits his work with having prevented a division of the 
Church in 1840 rather than in 1844.°° 


The action of the Conference on slavery, together with 
the “pastoral Address” furnished the rules by which bishops, 
conferences and people were to be guided for the ensuing 
four years. This document, which was written by George 
Peck, strongly advised ministers and laymen — and the ad- 
vice was equivalent to a command — to leave the anti-slavery 
controversy entirely alone.*!| The Conference rejoiced that 
Methodists were so strongly in favor of remaining “one 
and indissoluble.” It was admitted that some leaders had 
entered into controversies over slavery but it was asserted 
that the people were largely faithful to the Church. They 
affrmed that there seemed “far less occasion to fear from 
the causes of dissension than there was at the last meeting 
of this conference. Indeed, brethren, we have no doubt but 
if we all continue to ‘walk by the same rule, and to mind 
the same things,’ in which in the order of God we have been 
instructed, ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against us,’ 
and the enemy who would divide and scatter, in order to 
destroy us, will be disappointed.” The action of the Con- 
ference was referred to as indicating the sentiment of the 
nation on that subject.®? 

The General Conference of 1840 marks the end of an era 
in Methodist history. In the strenuous controversy which 
had begun in 1831, those who favored abolitionism had at- 
tempted by a process of education, radical though it may have 
been, to change the thinking of the Methodist Episcopal 


100 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


Church on the question of slavery. Until 1840 they had 
fervently hoped that each General Conference would approve 
their action. It was too much to expect such a change in 
1832; in 1836 abolitionists were met with repression; and 
in 1840, northern radicals considered their case hopeless. For 
some radicals it meant submission to the constituted authori- 
ties of the Church, even though they must stifle their con- 
sciences ; to others, a break with the Church seemed the only 
possible escape. The disappointment of abolitionists may be 
imagined. Decisions had been made by the Conference, bar- 
ring the testimony of negroes in church trials in the South; 
forbidding a southern annual conference to deny the advance- 
ment of ministers because they were slaveholders; and giving 
bishops absolute power for four years in the administration 
of annual conferences. To the South, the results of the 
General Conference must have seemed the fulfillment of the 
rashest dreams of their leaders ; to time-serving compromisers 
it probably appeared that their policy had wrought the sal- 
vation of the Church; to abolitionists it was a period of 
gloom. Both southerners and abolitionists had shown the 
courage of their convictions; the compromisers had thrown 
their full strength against the abolitionists, and the theories 
of the South were accepted as the will and law of the Church. 
If slavery were triumphant in 1836, it was supremely so 


in 1840. 





1. The usual debates on slavery were held, but the subject matter 
was substantially the same as has been considered in previous 
chapters. 

2. The Liberator, Volume VIII, p. 128, cols. 1-3; August 3, 1838. The 
resolutions were again adopted in 1839, by a vote of 80 to 81. 
(Mudge, History of the New England Conference, pp. 286-8). 

8. Clark, The Life and Times of Bishop Hedding, pp. 528-30. 

4. Mudge, The History of the New England Conference, p. 288. 

5 ier Christian Advocate, Volume VI, p. 94, cols. 4-5; October 
4, 1839. 

6. Gregg, The History of the Erie Conference, Volume II, pp. 101-3. 

7. Redford, Western Cavaliers, pp. 268-9. 

8. Elliott, The Great Secession, col. 198. 

9. Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, pp. 160-64. 

10. Ibid., pp. 155-6. 

11. Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, pp. 20-24. Cf. Sutton, 
The Methodist Church Property Case, pp. 50-52. 

12. Their statement indicated the English Methodist desire rather 
than actual fact. The Church had not been anti-slavery. 

13. Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, pp. 24-6, 

14. Matlack, History of American Slavery and Methodism, p. 206. 

15. Scott must have been considerably embarrassed because of his 
attitude on women’s rights. 

16. If the petition were as represented by conservatives, and the 
latter were standing on unassailable ground it seems strange 
that they should be uhwilling to publish the documents, 


We 
18. 


The Methodist Juggernaut 101 


Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, pp. 166-73. Cf. Matlack, 
History of American Slavery and Methodism, p. 206. 

Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, p. 173. A minority report was 
presented by abolition members of the committee but the Con- 
ference refused to receive it. (Ibid., p. 174). 


. Smith said: ‘“‘We, at the South, do not believe siavery a moral 


evil. If you from the free States think with us, say so. But 
if you think it is a moral evil, hands off that brother’’ (Scott). 
(Matlack, History of American Slavery and Methodism, p. 206). 


. Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, pp. 175-6. No suggestion 


has been found as to what the settlement really was. 


. This committee dealt with exceptions taken to the administration 


of the bishops in the various conferences, 


. Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, pp. 176-80. 
. Journals of the General Conference, Volume II, pp. 60 and 109. 


Cf. Matlack, History of American Slavery and Methodism, pp. 
215-16; and ‘Pullen, Blast of a Trumpet in Zion, p 


aca 
‘ Matlack, History of American Slavery and Methodism, pp. 218-20. 
’ Journals of the General Conference, Volume II, p. 109. 

. Bascom, who was considered a very brilliant preacher, later 


became a bishop of the Methodist. Episcopal Church, South. 


. The address of the bishops at the beginning of the Conference 


contained the same opinion. 


. Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, pp. 27-9. Cf. Sutton, 


The Methodist Church Property Case, pp. 55-7, 


. Cartwright, Autobiography, pp. 375-6. 
WEDIdeh pDinijioulo=4e 
. Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, p. 26. See also, 


Peck, The -.Life and Times of G. Peck, p. 230. 


. The Methodist Magazine and Quarterly Review, Volume XXII. 


(New Series, Volume XI,) pp. 352-3; Year 1840. It is my opinion 
that the General Conference misjudged the situation. The indi- 
cations were that the laity were more anti-slavery than the 
ministers. The sentiment expressed at the General Conference of 
1844 supports me. j 


CHAPTER IX 


THE CHANGING TIDE 


The General Conference decisions of 1840 were responsi- 
ble for momentous changes in Methodism’s attitude towards 
slavery. But for the succeeding three years the dominant 
note of annual conferences was submission to ecclesiastical 
authority. New England conference seems to have furnished 
the only excitement for.the first year. Sunderland was 
convicted on the charge that “he had behaved inconsistently 
with the character of a Christian minister.’ It was the 
bishop’s plan to transfer the rebel to New York conference, 
where abolitionists were very few in number, and where 
his conviction and expulsion from the conference would be 
more certain. Sunderland saved himself by obtaining a 
location. Neither Scott nor Sunderland received much sym- 
pathy from Garrison, who declared that they had received 
their proper punishment for abandoning him in former years. 

No more radical were the conferences of 1841. At least 
six of them said nothing at all against slavery.2 Kentucky 
conference commended the American Colonization Society, 
but apparently nothing was done to bring about universal 
emancipation.» In only two conferences does there seem to 
have been even the semblance of a struggle. Pittsburgh 
conference tried and suspended one member for agitating 
the slavery question. Elliott says that the conference also 
took action on slaveholding. They treated as “brethren 
those who were involuntary slaveholders, but refused to 
fellowship all others.” Concerning this latter class, the min- 
isters were of the opinion that there were “few of this 
description in the pale of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
even at the extreme south.” Elliott also affirms that aboli- 
tionists caused all the trouble in this conference. He added: 
“A few months will bring a calm of entire peace to the entire 
Church within the bounds of the Pittsburg conference.’’* 
In Erie conference there was a sharp contest between aboli- 
tionists and conservatives, but the struggle soon resulted 


102 


The Changing Tide 103 


in favor of the latter. Elliott predicted this result for the 
whole Church.* 

In 1842 the attempt was again made to maintain the status 
quo. Philadelphia conference had no report on slavery.® 
Bishop Hedding presided over six conferences and, if his 
biographer may be trusted, he was completely satisfied with 
the action of each conference on slavery and abolitionism.® 
As in 1841, so in 1842 there were two conferences in which 
radicalism showed itself. In New Hampshire conference 
Hedding put forth the doctrine that a bishop could transfer 
ministers from one conference to another to “correct” them. 
An abolitionist moved that, since southern ministers were not 
executing the Discipline in regard to slavery, they should 
be transferred to northern conferences. The bishop replied 
that if southern ministers were brought north, northern 
preachers must be transferred to southern conferences. He 
therefore proposed that the mover of the resolution be sent 
to New Orleans, where they greatly needed a pastor. The 
expected happened. The abolitionist’s ardor rapidly waned 
as he considered the prospect of proclaiming his doctrines 
to slaveholders. By an almost unanimous vote, the reso- 
lution was indefinitely postponed.’ Only Providence con- 
ference succeeded in passing resolutions which favored 
the destruction of slavery and the elimination of “the pol- 
lution” of this great evil from the Church.® 


Channing and other writers charged that American 
churches were throwing their influence, for the most part, 
on the side of those who apologized for slavery.2 This was 
true of the Methodist Church. Abolitionism had been driven 
under ground. Radicals had fought against the forces of 
slavery, and the equally formidable power of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, which had been brought to bear upon 
them and, apparently, the battle had ended disastrously for 
the anti-slavery cause. The statement of Bennett that the 
action of the General Conference on colored testimony in 
church trials “sent a thrill of indignation far and wide, and 
awoke many to a realization of the growing evil that had 
crept into our Zion,”!® seems to have little basis in fact, 
prior to 1843, so far as Church officials were concerned. 

Evidences of revolt were not lacking. Unofficial Metho- 
dist publications sought to inform the people in regard to 
the evils of slavery and the “despotism” of the Church. In 


104 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


1841, the New England Christian Advocate, with Luther Lee 
as editor, began publication at Lowell, Massachusetts. 
Orange Scott heartily commended this paper and declared 
that the four anti-slavery conferences of New England 
needed more than one Methodist anti-slavery organ.t Lee 
sought to arouse the North with accounts of slavery in the 
South.!* Zion's Herald commended two men for their activi- 
ties in behalf of freedom. Governor Seward was praised 
because he refused to surrender to the governor of Georgia, 
three men who were charged with having stolen or liberated 
slaves.18 John Quincy Adams, who was at that time in 
the House of Representatives, was acclaimed because of his 
brave stand against those who wished to deny the people the 
right to petition Congress.1* 

That which stirred abolitionists to the highest pitch of 
excitement was the General Conference action on colored 
testimony, and the power of the bishops, and the results of 
these resolutions in annual conferences. Zion’s Herald con- 
demned unsparingly the General Conference action on colored 
testimony.’*> But the most radical of Methodist papers seems 
to have been the Utica Wesleyan Methodist. The editor 
censure impartially both General Conference resolutions. 
It was held that despotism in the Church had been develop- 
ing ever since the beginning of the anti-slavery struggle. 
This was especially noticeable in every section of the country 
where effectual methods for ridding the Church and Nation 
of slavery had been suggested. As has already been nar- 
rated, bishops, conferences and official papers had shown 
their arbitrary tendency by refusing abolitionists the right 
of free speech and the privilege of stating their side of the 
controversy in official papers. The final and crowning 
achievement of the Church had been the decision of the 
General Conference on colored testimony.!® 

Zion's Watchman ridiculed the idea that slavery could be 
driven from the Methodist Church, and pointed to the records 
for the years following the General Conference of 1836 as 
proof of the failure of the Church. Even the professedly 
abolition conferences of New England had been gagged and 
preachers compelled to submit to the bishops or withdraw 
from the Church. So they professed fidelity to the Church 
and the highest regard for the episcopacy which was “ruling 
them as with a rod of iron.” The editor declared that he 


The Changing Tide 105 


had ceased to hope that the Church, as such, would do any- 
thing to destroy slavery, and cited in proof Hedding’s state- 
ment that abolitionists could be scattered among other 
conferences where they would be helpless.’ 


It is apparent from the statement of the Utica Wesleyan 
Methodist that, in the minds of abolitionists, the arbitrary 
rule of officials was closely associated with the suppression 
of the anti-slavery party. It was claimed that bishops had 
it in their power to appoint to office whomsoever they desired. 
They believed that bishops, presiding elders and preachers 
were pro-slavery men. Bishops were able to accomplish 
the suppression of abolitionists by noticing who belonged to 
the anti-slavery party, and then appointing their opponents 
to the more lucrative positions. Presiding elders and the 
most prominent preachers were all of the conservative party, 
and abolitionists were compelled to serve under these favor- 
ites. The result was that preachers were compelled to oppose 
radicalism or have their influence practically nullified.1® 


Aboltionists sought to arouse as much as possible the 
anti-slavery sentiment among Methodists. In New England, 
Elliott’s observation is that the Church and particularly the 
bishops and preachers were pronounced pro-slavery by ultra- 
abolitionists. At every opportunity the latter discussed 
slavery and sought to keep the Church in a turmoil.1® In 
two directions, at least, radicals accomplished little, except to 
show that Methodism was opposed to abolitionists. The two 
official papers refused to print the statements of radicals. 
Both the Christian Advocate and Journal and the Western 
Christian Advocate took the position that they had no right 
to oppose the will of the General Conference. In answer 
to subscribers who refused to renew their subscriptions be- 
cause he would not discuss the existence of slavery in the 
Methodist Church, the editor of the latter paper asserted that 
the decision had been made by the General Conference and 
the people should obey it. But the editor opposed abolitionists 
for personal reasons. He declared that they were so divided 
that, no matter which party he joined, he would be con- 
demned by other groups of radicals. He condemned the 
anti- slavery party because their program was revolutionary 
and had a “bad effect on the piety of those who espouse 
it.” Further, he feared the evil results of agitation on the 
work among the slaves.?? 


106 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


In view of the opposition which confronted them in 1842, 
ultra-abolitionists of the Methodist Church followed the 
only possible course. Mention has already been made of 
ministers who withdrew from the Methodist Episcopal 
Church.*! These were only the forerunners of a movement 
which thoroughly alarmed reactionaries of the Church. Se- 
cessions had begun in Ohio by 1839, and in Michigan and 
New York conferences within a year after the General 
Conference of 1840.22 Most of the abolitionists, however, 
had remained in the Church, hoping that the General Con- 
ference of that year “would do something to clear the skirts 
of the church from the blood of slavery.” But by 1842 
opinion was rapidly changing. Zion’s Watchman believed 
that all who considered it their duty should withdraw from 
the Church and form a new organization.2* Many of these 
did organize as “Wesleyan Methodists.’’?? 


As early as 1841 Orange Scott and Luther Lee had 
seriously contemplated withdrawal from the Church.** But 
Scott’s health failed and the proposed secession languished 
for lack of a leader.** During the years 1841 and 1842 
Scott received many requests to lead in the establishment 
of a new organization. In answer to this persistent demand, 
he wrote, September 2, 1842, that he had decided to leave 
the Methodist Episcopal Church and stand for “a new anti- 
slavery, anti-intemperance, anti-everything wrong, church 
organization.”*® Scott’s action was heartily approved by the 
venerable Seth Sprague,?* who called upon his fellow-mem- 
bers to throw off “the abominable despotism of Methodist 
Episcopacy, and no longer sustain any institution that is 
steeped in blood and tears.’*8 Finally, he announced his own | 
withdrawal from the Church.” 
In October, 1842, it was rumored that secessionists were . 
about to form a new Church.°° The rumor was confirmed by 
a meeting at Albany, New York, November 2 and 3, for the 
purpose of starting the organization. Five ministers and 
several laymen were present.*! Luther Lee was not informed 
of the movement until after this initial meeting. For some 
unknown reason, Scott feared that he might be opposed to 
some features of the plan and desired to place his statement 
before the public before critics could destroy his program.*? 

A second meeting to perfect the organization of the new 
Church was held, February 1, 1843, at Andover, Massachu- 


The Changing Tide 107 


setts. Out of this grew a General Convention, which met 
at Utica, New York, May 31, of the same year. Nearly 
one hundred preachers were present. At this convention the 
delegates proposed many ideas as “fundamental,” but four 
principles were accepted: (1) No Slaveholding. The rule 
of their Discipline forbade “The buying or selling of men, 
women or children, with an intention to enslave them, or 
holding them as slaves; or claiming that it is right to do so.”38 
(2) They decided to have no bishops. (3) The Church was 
for temperance. This action was especially significant be- 
cause the Methodist Episcopal Church was supposed to 
have evaded the temperance issue. (4) After an exciting 
debate, the Convention decided against lodges and other 
secret societies. This last decision cost the new Church many 
members.*4 Thus was begun the “Wesleyan Methodist 
Connection of America,” or, as it was often called in derision, 
the “Scottite’” church. 


That the secessions were alarming is indicated by the 
report that one hundred fifty ministers and from six to 
eight thousand members had withdrawn from the Methodist 
Episcopal Church on account of slavery and joined with 
other aboltionists to strengthen the Wesleyan organization.*° 
All Liberty Party editors who were members of the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church — Smith, Colby and Beckley — joined 
the new Church.*¢ 

The first result of the secession movement was an attempt 
to bribe Luther Lee. The Boston Preachers’ Meeting au- 
thorized one of their number to write him as follows: “If 
your principles and convictions of right will allow you to do 
so, I know what I say when I tell you that you shall have 
any position in the Church you desire if you will come out 
and wield your vigorous pen against secession.’’3? 

But Lee was not so easily bought, and determined to act 
with the seceders. His reasons for so drastic an action may 
be accepted as those of abolitionists generally. First, he 
declared that slavery was a great evil. Second, he said that 
the Methodist Episcopal Church “appeared to indorse, . . . 
defend and maintain slavery as it existed in the Church, 
while” he “was unable to see any essential moral difference 
between slavery in the Church and slavery out of the Church.” 
He presented as his proof that ministers were allowed to say 
slavery was morally right, without condemnation; while abo- 


108 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


litionists were not permitted to denounce the sinfulness of 
slavery without impairing their ministerial character. Fur- 
ther, in annual conferences, bishops showed that the Church 
was against abolitionism by permitting a vote on resolu- 
tions justifying slavery and condemning abolitionists, but 
refusing to permit any action on a motion in which slavery 
was condemned as a sin. He also condemned the General 
Conference of 1836 for censuring the two abolitionists who 
spoke at the anti-slavery meeting in Cincinnati, and refusing 
to act against slavery. 


The General Conference of 1840, according to Lee, de- 
served an even greater amount of censure, for not only were 
three northern conferences condemned, and Georgia con- 
ference, which had stood for slavery, given the approval of 
that body, but the “colored testimony resolution” was adopted 
as the will of the Church — “an act which was undeniably 
in the interest of slavery, and was antichristian, and not to 
be justified on moral ground. This involved the whole 
Church in the disgrace and guilt of denying to a class of 
Christians the rights of membership in the Church.” The 
Church also permitted both ministers and laymen to keep 
slaves but “waged what was intended to be an exterminating 
war upon abolitionism and abolitionists, intending to silence 
or drive them out of the Church.’38 


Lee also protested against the rule of bishops and presiding 
elders, and declared that their whole policy was based upon 
the idea that abolitionists must be suppressed. He afhrmed — 
and his statement has been amply proved — that abolitionists 
were sent to undesirable charges, while an abolition church 
was given to an “orthodox” minister “to annoy and wear 
them out.” He cited one instance in which a church asked 
for a certain anti-slavery preacher, then for one out of five 
whom they named, then to be left without a minister, and 
finally that the bishop would send any preacher except one man 
whom they did not want. From the last proposal the people 
got action, for the preacher against whom they had protested 
was sent to them. The congregation refused to accept the 
preacher, the latter pronounced them all expelled from the 
Church, and the minister was upheld by another bishop who 
declared: “There is energy in Methodism.” Lee contended 
that the action of officials had crippled the anti-slavery 
movement.%9 


The Changing Tide 109 


Mutual recrimination was the order of the hour. Zion’s 
Herald, condemned the new movement for the establishment 
of another Church as work in the dark.4° The Christian 
Advocate and Journal proclaimed that Luther Lee was “a 
metaphysical tadpole, always wiggling to stir up the muddy 
waters of strife.’”41 The Pittsburg Christian Advocate, aiter 
censuring those members “who clandestinely co-operate with 
the seceders in their efforts to destroy” the Methodist 
Church, asserted that Scott approved their work and would 
“conceal whatever of hypocrisy said members may please to 
practice.”4* William Hosmer, editor of the Northern Chris- 
tian Advocate, affirmed that certain, abolitionists were “mor- 
ally and mentally deficient; and hence totally incapable of 
conducting a process of thought.” He also maintained that 
the radicalism of abolitionists was producing discord and 
that they thus became “a scourge and a burlesque to common 
sense.’48 And Peter Cartwright, writing at a later time 
of this excitement, expressed the prevailing contempt of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church for this movement when he 
said that “the fog and smoke of run-mad clerical abolitionism 
ended in a feeble secession under O. Scott & Co., and a 
few of the same cloth and kidney.’”# 


Abolitionists repaid their traducers in kind. The official 
publication of the Wesleyans was “The True Wesleyan,” 
which had for its motto “First Pure, then Peaceable.’’4 
This paper published everything of interest in building up 
the new Church at the expense of the old organization, a 
favorite heading being “The glorious work of secession goes 
on.”46 Of Dr. Bond, editor of the Christian Advocate and 
Journal, the Wesleyan editor said that he was “so much below 
the common standard of ‘Christian courtesy in all his assaults 
upon the Wesleyans,” and copied “so closely in style, the 
blackguardism of the grog shop,” that it was considered 
unnecessary to reply to him.#? 

That which the agitation of a decade had failed to accom- 
plish, the secession of those who formed the Wesleyan 
Methodist Church brought to pass. For the policy of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church changed immediately when the 
secession movement began to gather momentum.*® Even 
before the Utica Convention was held, three “orthodox” 
Methodist conventions were called — one at Boston, one at 
Hallowell, Maine, and the third at Claremont, New Hamp- 


110 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


shire. At Boston, resolutions were adopted against slavery,*® 
while at Hallowell, the delegates asserted that “every slave- 
holder is a sinner and ought not to be admitted to the pulpit 
or communion.” They declared that they had reliable evi- 
dence to show that “there were within the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church 200 travelling ministers holding 1600 slaves, 
about 1000 local preachers holding 10,000, and about 25,000 
members holding 207,900” slaves.°° 

The change in the policy of the Church is most clearly 
seen in the action of bishops and annual conferences. No 
bishop — not even Hedding®!— attempted to obstruct any 
resolution on the sinfulness of slavery and slaveholding. 
“All were free to talk against slavery; lips which had always 
been closed, or opened only to execrate abolition and traduce 
abolitionists, were now opened wide to denounce slavery, and 
one wild anti-slavery shout was heard, which nearly drowned 
the vociferations of the few seceders.”°* And yet the action 
of these conferences was a complete reversal of that per- 
mitted by the General Conference of 1840. 


In New England conference, petitions were sent out to be 
signed by members of the Church, which asked for three 
things: (1) that the next General Conference admit colored 
testimony; (2) that slaveholders should not be elected 
bishops; and (3) that the church be freed from the evil 
of slavery.°> One of the most significant and dramatic 
incidents of this conference was the appearance of Dr. Bond 
at the anti-slavery meeting. While New England conference 
refused to follow Scott and Sunderland into the Wesleyan 
Church, yet the conference anti-slavery society pledged its 
support to the Massachusetts Abolition Society and paid in 
cash over one hundred dollars to aid in its work.°4 Other 
New England conferences passed resolutions of similar 
import.*° 

Two conferences — Genesee and New York — proposed 
certain changes 1n the General Rule on Slavery. The former 
desired a revision of the rule so that no slaveholder could 
be a member of the Church if it were possible to free his 
slaves.°6 New York conference asked for the restoration 
of the early form of the rule.®” With the Genesee proposal, 
Erie conference refused to agree by a vote of 61 to 33, but 
the change suggested by New York conference was adopted 
unanimously.°? Further south, the proposed changes do 


The Changing Tide | 111 


not seem to have met with a favorable reception. While 
Baltimore conference, in 1843 and 1844, required some 
members to free their slaves and suspended F. A. Harding 
until he should agree to manumit some slaves which belonged 
to him and his wife, they refused to agree to any change 
of the rule on slavery.5® Similar action was taken by South 
Carolina conference against the northern proposals.® 

To the South, northern conferences seemed very radical. 
Dr. Bond was looked upon with suspicion. One incident 
which caused friction between the two sections was the at- 
tempt on the part of slaveholders in Maryland to pass laws 
which would either drive free blacks from the state or reduce 
them to servitude. Methodists thereupon took action against 
the proposed law.®! The slaveholders’ scheme was condemned 
by Bond as unsparingly as abolitionism had previously been.® 
This notice of the southern “institution” by a notoriously 
conservative Methodist paper excited no little alarm in the 
South. One writer asserted that such a discussion “in that 
paper must close all access to the colored people of the south, 
and send home our missionaries, or compel the southern 
Church, from a love of souls, to a separation.”® It was also 
held that the northern paper would not circulate in the South 
when it agitated “questions so justly considered dangerous.’ 63 


The suggestion that the Christian Advocate and Journal 
would not circulate in the South if it attacked slaveholders 
may have been responsible for an article by Dr. Bond.* 
Two propositions were discussed: (1) whether or not the 
General Conference should exclude all slaveholders from 
the Church, under all circumstances; and (2) if it were 
granted that there were instances in which slavery was justi- 


fied, could a rule be made which would punish the guilty 
and spare exempt cases? 


Both propositions were answered in the negative. It 
was held that there was no justification in the Scriptures 
for secession on account of slavery, or for a rule destroying 
slavery in the Church, and that the work among slaves would 
be effectually stopped if such a rule were enacted. Besides, 
none of the larger Churches had such a rule — not even the 
British Wesleyan Church, which tolerated slavery until the 
time of general emancipation. He believed that the Church 
should not exclude slaveholders in the nineteenth: century 
any more than in the time of the apostles. Finally, he 


112 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


declared: “The sinfulness of slaveholding depends upon the 
circumstances of the case, and no general rule can meet their 
circumstances.”®5 That southern Methodists were mollified 
by this position may be seen from the resolution of North 
Carolina conference that they heartily approved “the very 
prudent, independent, and able manner in which the Rev. 
Dr. Bond has conducted the Christian Advocate and Journal ; 
and that we regard him as being peculiarly well qualified 
for the important post which he occupies as senior editor 
of that General conference paper.’’®® 


The extreme radicalism of the North brought protests 
from the South. Southerners considered that abolitionists 
were interfering in matters of which they were totally igno- 
rant. The North was charged with arguing the abstract 
question of freedom or slavery as though servitude were to 
be introduced into the country for the first time, and not 
a system already present. It was also maintained that north- 
ern oratory was directed against the abuses of slavery rather 
than the system as a whole. The practical question was how 
to rid the country of slavery if it were incurably bad, and 
what should be done with freedmen. In answer to the 
suggestion that slaves should be freed and permitted to 
remain in the South, as they were in the North, one writer 
contended that the condition of northern negroes was not 
superior to that of those in the South.®? Further, the same 
editor declared the position of the South to be that, “as a 
church, we have no authority from heaven or of men, to 
disturb or change the civil relations which are authorized 
and established by the State.’® 


The quadrennium following the General Conference of 
1840 witnessed a remarkable change in Methodism’s official 
attitude towards slavery. Before 1842, ministers had been 
expelled from conferences, and members from the Church 
for the alleged sin of being avowed abolitionists; such an 
event would never occur again. Before that date, bishops, 
official papers and most conferences had sought to prevent 
the growth of abolition propaganda; never more would a 
conference be coerced and cowed into obedience on this 
question. In 1840, the General Conference had passed 
resolutions which were perfectly satisfactory to the slave- 
holding South; henceforth, no quadrennial conference of 
the Church would dare openly to support slavery. But it 


The Changing Tide 113 


must not be presumed that these gains, slight as some of them 
were, came because of a change of heart among Church 
officials. Fear was the controlling factor in this sudden 
change of policy. Threatened by a secession of unknown 
proportions, leaders of Methodism sought to retain as many 
members as possible. This could be done only by making 
concessions to the radical northern conferences. Curiously 
enough, after this had been done, the concessions which 
were granted during the succeeding twenty years were made, 
not to keep abolitionists but pro-slavery members within 
the Methodist fold! 


1. For Troy conference, see the Minutes for 1840. For New York, 
New England, Michigan, Ohio and North Ohio conferences, see 
Clark, The Life and Times of Hedding, pp. 560-61. For Erie 
conference, see Gregg, History of Methodism in the Erie Con- 
ference, Volume II, p. 128. 

2. For Philadelphia, New York, New Jersey, Providence, New Eng- 
land and Maine conferences see Clark, Life and Times of Hedding, 
p. 566. 

8. Redford, Western Cavaliers, pp. 397-8. 

4. Western Christian Advocate, Volume VIII, p. 66, col. 3; August 
13, 1841. Concerning Pittsburg conference, Elliott says: ‘‘They 
distinguish between the system and those who hold slaves. The 
holders of slaves, who are such, not voluntarily, but by con- 
straint, they receive and treat as brethren. For those who hold 
slaves, without constraint of law, they entertain no brotherly 
approbation. They believe, however, there are few of this des- 
cription in the pale of the Methodist Episcopal Church, even at 
the extreme south.’? Concerning abolitionists, Elliot wrote that 
“disaffection and opposition to the Church is now the watchword 
of most Methodist abolitionists; or at least this is the case with 
that class with whom the Church has to contend. With others 
there is no controversy.’’ 

5. See the Minutes of the conference for 1842, 

6. Clark, Life and Times of Hedding, p. 572. 

7. Ibid., pp. 573-4, 

8. Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, p. 82. 

9. Channing, Works, p. 837. Cf. Birney, James G. Birney and His 
Times, pp. 367-8. 

10. Bennett, History of Methodism in Wisconsin, p. 186. 

aml! a ae Christian Advocate, Volume I, p. 2, col. 2; January 

12. Ibid., p. 206, cols. 1-3; December 9, 1841. 

13. Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XII, p. 14, col. 2; 
January, 1841. 

14. Ibid., Volume XIII, p. 26, cols. 3-4; February 16, 1842. The editor 
wrote: “‘The ruffian rabble who have made the capitol the kennel 
of the nation have found in him the strange anomaly of a veteran 
politician who. seems to be perfectly unconscious that party 
interests are paramount to national ones, that honor is opposed 
to. honesty and slavery is freedom ; 

Full of talents, honors and years, he seems to have 
ants by the appointment of Providence, from the first age 
and the highest seat of the nation, to stand in its popular assem- 
bly, a living rebuke to its folly and anarchy, and an impersonation 
of the patriotism of the older times. Let the nation prize and 
honor him, for it will never see his like again.”’ 

15. Ibid., p. 152, col. 4; September 21, 1842 and Ibid, p. 156, cols. 2-3; 
September 28, 1842. 


114 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


16. 


shyt 
18. 


19 


120; 


23. 


25. 
26. 
27. 
28. 
29, 
30. 


31 


32. 
33. 


The Liberator, Volume XI., p. 61; col. 6; April 16, 1841. The 
following article on ‘‘Methodist Episcopacy’’ was quoted from the 
Utica Wesleyan Methodist: 

“The despotism of the Methodist Episcopacy has been developing 
itself more and more from the commencement of the anti-slavery 
struggle, not only in Utica but all over the country where there 
has been any effectual means taken to remove the ‘great evil of 
slavery’. But the overwhelming proof of the arbitrary character of 
this system was furnished in the resolution of the last General 
Conference, and now stands as a law of the Church.’ ‘That it is 
inexpedient and UNJUSTIFIABLE for a colored person to TESTIFY 
AGAINST A WHITE PERSON IN CHURCH TRIALS in those 
States where such testimony is not admitted by courts of law.’ 
If the ‘highest judicatory can pass such a vresluotion, and a 
preacher, at his own WILL, can reinstate in the church an expelled 
member, does it need any farther proof that ‘the government of 
the M. E. Church, from its highest judiciary downwards is essentially and 
radically DESPOTIC’ ’’? 

Quoted in The Liberator, Volume XII, p. 89, cols. 2-3; June 
10, 1842 

Ibid., Volume XI., p. 1388, col. 3; August 27, 1841. 

Quoted in Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, pp. 31-2. 
Elliott concludes: ‘‘Hence slavery was talked, and preached, and 
prayed about, and little else, making a watchword of the party 
the theme of the class-meeting, the love feast, and the prayer- 
meeting, as well as of the rostrum and the periodicals.’’ 
Western Christian Advocate, Volume VIII., p. 3, cols. 1-2; April 
23, 1841. In regard to abolitionism, the editor said: ‘‘There is a 
dangerous schismatic spirit, a practice, and principles in this recent 
abolitionism, which we cannot conscientiously adopt. 

“Politically, it is revolutionary, and tends to anarchy, rebellion, and 
treason. As a Christian, we respect the powers that be, though 
they may be even in political error.’’ Abolitionism was ‘fa system 
of agitation, rather than discussion.’’ Relative to the methods of 
abolitionists he said that they had ‘“‘taken part with a foreign 
power against the United States. Their accredited agents in Great 
Britain denounce and misrepresent this country, in a manner which 
we believe to be libelous and infamous.’’ Indicating his future 
policy he concluded: ‘This is our final chapter on these points, 
and no ruthless array of words will, we presume, draw us from 
this intention.’’ 


Sh Supra, p. 91, footnote 23. 


Professor Norwood includes Pennsylvania (Norwood, The Schism 
in the Methodist Church, 1844, p. 48). Cf. Myers, The Disruption 
of the M. E. Church, pp. 31-2. 

me in the Liberator, Volume XII, p. 89, cols. 2-3; June 10, 
i} { 


. At this time Scott was serving the Methodist church at Lowell, 


Massachusetts, where the congregation had taken the revolutionary 
step of choosing their own preacher instead of accepting 
the appointee of the bishop. For this, Scott was promised that 
every effort would be made at the ensuing annual conference 
to expel him from the Church. Strangely enough, no action 
was taken. 

Norwood, The Schism in the Methodist Church, 1844, p. 47. 
Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, pp. 187-206. 

A member of the Methodist church at Duxbury, Massachusetts. 
The Liberator, Volume XIL., p. 150, cols. 5-6; September 23, 1842. 
Ibid., p, 170, cols. 4-5; October ‘28, 1842. 

Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XIII., p. 156, col. 3; 
October 26, 1842. 

Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, pp. 262-3. 

Lee, Autobiography, p. 237. 

Discipline of the Wesleyan Methodist Connection of America, 
p21 


34. 


36. 


37. 
38. 


39. 


40. 
41. 


42 


43. 
44. 


49. 


56. 


The Changing Tide 115 


Matlack, The Life of Orange Scott, pp. 209-22. Cf. Lee, Autobi- 
ography, pp 247-50. 


5. The Liberator, Volume XIII., p. 114, col. 5; July 21, 1843. For 


examples of secessions from conferences, see Conable, History of 
the Genesee Conference, pp. 497-8; and Western Christian Advo- 
cate, Volume X., p. 102, col, 4; October 13, 1843. 

The True Wesleyan, Volume II., p. 19, col. 3; February, 1844. 
The significance of several thousand Wesleyans in the election of 
1844 has not been suggested by any historical writer. Many of 
the Scottites resided in New York, the state which determined 
the election, and therefore are to be credited, in part at least, with 
the result. 

Lee, Autobiography, p. 237. 

Ibid., pp. 241-6. Cf. Scott, Grounds for secession from the 
M. E. Church, pp. 4-8; The True Wesleyan, Volume I. p. 1; 
COlMsL UL aNUALY 1 11 643% 

Lee, Autobiography, pp 241-6. Cf. Scott, Grounds of Secession 
from the M. E. Church, p. 4; The True Wesleyan, Volume I., 
p. 1, col. 1; January 7, 1843 and Ibid., p. 5, cols. 1-4; January 
14, 1843. 

Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XIII. p. 174, col. 3; 
November 30, 1842. 

Lee, Autobiography, pp. 241-6. 

Pittsburg Christian Advocate, Volume XI., p. 45, col. 4; April 16, 
1844. 

The Liberator, Volume XIII., p. 149, col. 1; September 22, 1843. 
Cartwright, Autobiography, p. 414. In another place he says: 
“O. Scott and his co-adjutors formed themselves into a separate 
party organization, calling themselves the ‘True Wesleyans’; but 
long since they have found, to their sorrow, that they misnamed 
the brat, for the secession that they produced was a very feeble, 
little and illegitimate child. But they nursed it till it took the 
rickets; and the last I heard of it, it was fast wasting away, and 
‘the last state of it was worse than the first.’’’ (Ibid., p. 364). 


. The first number was published January 7, 1843. 

. Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, pp. 31-2. 

. The True Wesleyan, Volume I., p. 143, col. 2; September 9, 1843. 
. Alexander (A History of the Methodist Church, South, p. 13) states 


the situation exactly: ‘‘Prior to 1843 no Annual Conference was 
allowed to say that all slaveholding was sin. Subsequently no 
form of expression was objected. to by the presiding officer of an 
annual conference.”’ 

The True Wesleyan, Volume I., p. 14, cols. 2-4; January 28, 1843. 
Lee was convinced that this was done for effect, in order to block 
the Wesleyan movement. He predicted that several members of 
New England conference would secede in 1844 or earlier. 


. Mudge, History of the New England Conference, p. 294. Cf. 


Townsend, A New History of Methodism, Volume II., pp. 182-3. 


. Clark, Life and Times of Hedding, p. 582. The conferences pre- 


sided over by Hedding were the Philadelphia, New Jersey, New 
York, Providence, New England and Maine. 


. Lee, Autobiography, pp. 251-2. 
. Elliott, The Great Secession, p. 251. 
. Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XIII., p. 128, col. 3; 


August 10, 1842. 


. For Maine conference, see Minutes of the Maine conference, 1843, 


p. 13; and The True Wesleyan, Volume I., p. 169, col. 5; October 
28, 1843. For Providence conference, see Elliott, The Great Seces- 
sion, col, 243. For New Hampshire conference, see Ibid., cols, 205-6. 
The Genesee conference desired a change of the rule “so as not 
to admit or continue any person a member who holds a slave or 
slaves in any State, Territory, or District, where the laws of the 
State, Territory, or District will admit of emancipation and per- 
mit the emancipated slave to enjoy freedom.’’ (Zion’s Herald and 
Wesleyan Journal, Volume XIV., p. 108, col. 2; July 5, 1843). 


116 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


57. 


68. 


It was sometimes contended that, according to the rule (supra, 
p. 6) there must be “buying or selling of men, women and child- 
ren” at the same time, or the law of the Church was not broken. 
The New York conference therefor asked for the restoration of 
the word “‘or’’ instead of ‘‘and’’ so that a wrong interpretation of 
the rule would be impossible. 


. Gregg, History of Methodism in the Erie Conference, Volume IL, 


pp. 204-5. 


. Armstrong, The Old Baltimore Conference, pp. 269-70, 272-3. 
. Western Christian Advocate, Volume X., p. 186, col. 6; March 8, 


1844. 


. Elliott, The Great Secession, cols. 237-8, 964-6. 
. Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume XVI., p. 119, col. 5; March 


9, 1842. 


. Elliott, The Great Secession, cols. 238-9. * 
. For his previous conservatism, Bond had been called ‘“‘pro-slavery 


—a charge which was indignantly denied. 


. Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, pp. 34-6. 
. Elliott, The Great Secession, col. 270. i 
. Southern Christian Advocate, Volume VI., p. 172, cols. 1-2; April 14, 


1843. Said the editor: ‘““‘What-rights and immunities have they in 
common with their white brethren (of the Nofth)? Are the high 
places of honor and profit open to them as they are to other 
men? Who ever heard or dreamed of a governor, judge, or 
congressman, of African descent, in Massachusetts? Has there 
ever been one of the race in a New England legislature, or even 
captain of a white militia company? Have the equality-loving 
citizens of the Old Bay State, shaken off all the prejudices of 
caste; are their drawing rooms, and the hands of their fair 
daughters accessible to merit independent of the hue of the skin? 
Why the fact is, regarding them as a class, the negroes of the 
free States have made no perceptible advance toward this sort of 
respectability, beyond their brethren of the South, if they have 
even gone so far.’’ 

Ibid., p. 176, col. 2; April 21, 1848. The relation of the North and 
the South, as seen from a_ southern viewpoint, was ad- 
mirably set forth by the editor of the Richmond Christian Advocate: 
“The former (South Carolina and Georgia) calm and placid as the 
surface of a mountain lake; the latter (New England) like the 
ocean in the uproar and rage of the storm. The one pursuing 
the legitimate and appropriate duties of the gospel in the old 
Methodist way; the other seeking extraneous objects by novel and 
pernicious means . . . The Methodist preacher at the North 
denouncing everything connected with slavery, and actually binding 
the fetters of the slaves with the greenest withes of prejudice 
and power, and contributing the whole of his moral influence to 
shut up the slave in the darkness of this life; and the Methodist 
preacher at the South intent upon his work, penetrating swamps, 
visiting the negro’s cabin, breasting and braving the persistent 
malaria, if haply he may preach Jesus and Him crucified.’’ (Quoted 
in the Southern Christian Advocate, Volume VII., p. 154, col. 3; 
March 8, 1844). Perhaps the love of southern preachers for the sal- 
vation of slaves was overdrawn, but we have the record of the reso- 
lution of North Carolina conference, favoring religious instruction of 
slaves. (See, Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume XI., p. 161, 
col. 2; December 14, 1843). As for New England, probably the 
description was not exaggerated, although abolitionists there were 
no doubt as conscientious in their advocacy of abolitionism as a 
cure for the ills of the Church and State as were the southerners 
in their opposition to the anti-slavery program. 


Che ROX 


A REVERSAL OF POLICY 


In 1840, all factions believed that conservatism had won 
and that the unity of the Church had been preserved. -In 
1844, the Church was hopelessly divided. Garrison, Scott, 
Storrs and Sunderland, in the role of prophets of a new era 
of freedom, had changed the current of Methodist history. 
When the General Conference of 1844 convened at New 
York, two powerful groups — southern and anti-slavery — 
faced each other in a struggle which ended in Methodism’s 
greatest catastrophe. Between these was the conservative 
faction which had formerly thrown its strength with the 
South. For more than a year, however, those who made up 
this fast vanishing minority had been rapidly assuming an 
attitude of antagonism to the South. A clash on the future 
policy of the Church was inevitable. 

Crises call forth leaders. In 1844 the Methodist Church 
faced one of the greatest of the many crucial periods through 
which the denomination has been compelled to pass. And to 
sustain the opinions. of their sections, there were gathered 
in New York some of the most influential leaders that the 
Church has ever had — men gifted in debate and oratory, in 
the controversies of the press, on mission fields in the South 
and West, in marshalling the nation’s spiritual forces. These 
men with mature convictions — men who in after years were 
to lead the two branches of Methodism as bishops, editors 
and influential pastors — sought the solution of one of the 
most important domestic questions ever before the people of 
this country. 

Keenly interested in all the proceedings of this Conference 
were the Wesleyan Church leaders. Especially was this true 
of Orange Scott who watched from the gallery the struggle 
in which he had formerly been a leading participant. In- 
deed, so intrusive were the Wesleyans that the editor of the 
Western Christian Advocate considered it his duty to warn 
his readers in advance against errors that were, as a matter 


117 


118 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


ia 


of course, to be published in The True Wesleyan. For the 
management of this radical paper sought to give the widest 
publicity to the proceedings of the Conference by offering 
the publication for six weeks for twenty-five cents. The 
editor of the Western even suggested that the General Con- 
ference “‘sit with closed doors” and exclude the “Scottites” 
and those of similar beliefs.* 

Experience had taught the bishops the futility of condemn- 
ing abolition, or advising that ministers refrain from agitating 
the subject of slavery. Perhaps as a result of this knowledge, 
no mention of slavery was made in the bishops’ address to 
the Conference. Further, the reply of the Conference of 
1840 to the British Wesleyan Church had apparently been 
very effective, for no mention was made of slavery in the 
address of that Church in 1844. The same is true of ad- 
dresses of the Canada Wesleyan Church and of the Evangeli- 
cal Association.» And when the Conference replied to these 
fraternal greetings, they carefully refrained from exciting 
passions which were soon to be unloosed.® 

Probably as a result of the omission of the subject from 
the Address of the bishops, no committee on slavery was 
appointed at the beginning of this conference.“ But on the 
third day, this committee, on motion of John Early, was 
finally ordered. Orange Scott wrote that this measure car- 
ried by a very large majority, and that if full liberty of 
discussion were given in the Committee and on the floor of 
the Conference, abolitionists would give a good account of 
themselves. He was convinced that that was the purpose 
and disposition of many members of the Conference, but he 
was also certain that no effective measures would be adopted 
against slavery, because of the influence which it had over the 
Church. “But,” said he, “if the subject can be freely and 
fully discussed, SLAVERY MUST, EVENTUALLY, 
DIE RY 


For three days the Conference was fairly deluged with 
petitions and resolutions on slavery.4° As has already been 
related, northeastern conferences asked for a change of the 
General Rule on the subject; Ohio and other western con- 
ferences presented their memorials; while southern confer- 
ences contented themselves with resolutions against any 
radical change. As had previously maintained, southern 
conferences were unanimous in maintaining the status quo. 


A Reversal of Policy 119 


Formerly, no effective action had been taken in response to 
demands from New England and the West; now the whole 
situation was to be definitely met and a decision reached. 

Two cases came before the Conference for settlement. The 
first was the appeal of F. A. Harding of Baltimore confer- 
ence. He had been suspended from his position in the 
conference for refusing to manumit some slaves which he 
had acquired by marriage. There was some difference of 
opinion as to whether the Maryland laws permitted manu- 
mission, but the fact that, according to the laws of that 
state, the slaves did not belong to Harding but to his wife, 
was fully established. Further, Harding had agreed to send 
the slaves to Liberia, or to a free state, if he could obtain 
his wife’s and the slaves’ permission. Not only was Harding 
charged with holding slaves, but, as a result of this sin, it 
was also maintained that it would be impossible to send him 
to a non-slaveholding congregation. Therefore, the “itin- 
erant system” of the Church would be destroyed. 


In many respects this case was similar to that involving 
Bishop Andrew, and it was consequently debated and the 
decision reached with the greater issue always in mind. 
After a week of debate, the General Conference refused to 
reverse the decision of Baltimore conference by a vote of 
117 to 56.42. Of the majority, only two votes — one from 
Missouri and one from Texas— were from southern con- 
ferences. Baltimore conference voted unanimously with the 
North. On the other hand, southerners had the support of 
all other border conferences, and also of nine delegates from 
northern conferences.1% Two results came from this southern 
defeat. Supporters of Andrew were alarmed because they 
saw that he was in danger. Abolitionists were apparently 
much encouraged, for there was another shower of anti- 
slavery petitions.1* 

Southern concern was shown in the preamble and resolu- 
tion offered by Dr. Capers and Dr. Olin.4® They asked that, 
in view of the agitation on the question of slavery and 
abolitionism, and the embarrassment under which members 
worked in the Conference because of sectional feeling, a 
committee of three from each section “be appointed to confer 
with the bishops and report within two days, as to the 
possibility of adopting some plan, and what, for the perma- 
nent pacification of the church.’?!® Dr. Olin, in support of 


120 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


the resolution, declared that he feared a breakup of the 
Church, and he was of the opinion that the only way to 
avoid a rupture was through mutual moderation. All seemed 
to feel that the Church was facing a crisis,!7 and an hour 
of the following day was set aside as a time for fasting and 
prayer. Two days later, delegates of the two sections 
were requested to meet separately to discuss the question of 
compromise.49 May 17, Bishop Soule reported for the 
“Committee on Pacification” that they had found it im- 
possible to reconcile the opinions of the two groups.” This 
“pacification scheme” is supposed by Elliott to have been 
an attempt on the part of southerners to break down all 
resistance to the pro-slavery South,?! but a study of the 
Journal and Debates of the Conference, together with much 
collateral evidence in the papers of the time, seems to show 
only a very sincere desire of the friends of peace to prevent 
a rupture of the Church. 

More important than the case of Harding was that of 
Bishop Andrew. For the latter was to settle the question 
whether a bishop could hold slaves and continue to perform 
the duties of his office. It has been successfully maintained 
that some bishops had actually held slaves, while others had 
no scruples against the practice; and that delegates, not only 
from the South but also from the North, had, on several 
occasions, supported slaveholders for the office of bishop. 
Coke was charged with being a voluntary slaveholder, while 
Asbury and Whatcoat became involuntary slaveholders when 
slaves were bequeathed to them by the wills of Methodists. 
Even McKendree was not opposed to siaveholding, and 
urged the election of Logan Douglas as a bishop, even though 
he was known to be a slaveholder.22, As we have already 
noted, northern delegates, including Finley and Cartwright, 
were very enthusiastic in their support of Dr. Capers in 
1832 and again in 1836 for the office of bishop.22 And 
in 1840 the General Conference had declared that the mere 
holding of slaves should not be a barrier to any office in 
the gift of the Church. | 
_ Previous to the General Conference of 1844, there had 
been considerable discussion on slaveholding in the episco- 
pacy. New England conferences petitioned that slaveholders 
be not elected to the office of bishop.2° When Capers sug- 
gested that the South wanted a southerner for bishop, the 


A Reversal of Policy 12} 


editor of Zion’s Herald said that this would cripple the work 
of the Church and he was not in favor of a cripple for 
bishop.*® The Pittsburgh Christian Advocate also opposed 
slaveholding bishops. He suggested that a slaveholder might 
be elected to the office and then change his residence to a 
northern state where manumission could be accomplished. 
“Such a movement should not subject him to the charge 
of profanity.’?" A southern writer held the same view as 
Capers and other leaders did, that bishops should be elected 
without regard to their connection with slavery, and that 
only merit should determine their selection.?® — 

The fact that Bishop Andrew was a slaveholder seems to 
have first become known through a controversy between Dr. 
Curry of Georgia conference and some northern leaders. 
By the time the delegates arrived in New York, abolitionists 
had succeeded in stirring northerners and a few delegates 
from slaveholding states to an uncompromising oP nae 
to Bishop Andrew.?? 

The committee on episcopacy began the Miatuoation of 
Andrew’s case almost as soon as it was appointed. The 
very fact that an abolitionist, Crandall of New England, con- 
ducted part of the negotiations was enough to warn Andrew. 
Before the full committee “he made a complete statement” 
of his connection with slavery.2° The bishop became appre- 
hensive of the outcome, and this, together with the state of 
his health and the needs of his motherless children, deter- 
mined him to resign. Southern delegates were assembled and 
the bishop’s decision announced. But the delegates protested 
so strongly that such action would “spread general discontent 
through the whole south,”?1 that he promised not to resign.?2 
Thereafter, when a committee of five, with Dr. Bangs as 
chairman, came to acquaint him with northern sentiment, 
he refused to communicate with them except in writing.?? 

May 20, ten days after Andrew met the southern delegates, 
J. A. Collins of Baltimore conference offered a preamble by 
which the Committee on Episcopacy was requested to investi- 
gate the report that one of the bishops held slaves.2° The far- 
reaching consequences of the resolution seem to have been im- 
- mediately apparent for Bishop Hedding considered it his duty 
to call “the attention of the conference to a rule in their 
Discipline, requiring them to remember, in all their discus- 


122 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


sions that the eye of God was upon them and he hoped, at 
present especially, they would remember this.”’%* 

The report of the Committee was really the evidence sub- 
mitted by Bishop Andrew himself. He stated that he had 
in his possession two slaves —a girl who had been left him 
by the will of an old lady in Augusta, Georgia, and a boy 
left him by his wife. In both instances, he was willing to 
send them to Liberia if they desired to go, or to a free 
state if they preferred, if he could be assured that provision 
would be made for their needs. In January, 1844, he mar- 
ried the second time. His wife held slaves whom she had 
inherited from the estate of her former husband, but Andrew 
declared that they were the property of his wife alone and 
that he had no interest in them.*® 

An exciting debate on the Committee’s report was begun, 
May 23,96 when Alfred Griffith and John Davis, both of 
Baltimore conference, offered a resolution requesting Bishop 
Andrew to resign his office in the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, because of his connection with slavery. It was 
asserted that this “embarrassment”? made it impossible for 
him to preside in certain conferences of the Church.8? Mr. 
Griffith spoke at considerable length in support of his reso- 
lution, the rules being suspended which permitted each 
delegate only fifteen minutes in which to address the Con- 
ference.*8 Northerners contended that it was entirely a 
question of expediency. They believed that it was expedient 
for the bishop to resign, and that the Conference had the 
power to depose a bishop at any time. Southern delegates 
argued that Bishop Andrew had done nothing for which, 
according to the Discipline, he could rightly be required to 
resign his office.2® The speeches on this resolution indicate 
that those ministers who sought the removal of Bishop 
Andrew failed utterly in their argument that he had done 
anything for which he could be held responsible, or had 
entered into any relation with slavery which he was able 
to remedy.*® 

That this observation is correct may be seen from the 
fact that northerners shifted from their original position 
as to the reason for deposing Andrew. According to 
Griffiths resolution, emphasis was placed on the fact that 
Andrew was a slaveholder and that the Church had always 
been opposed to slavery in the Episcopacy. Only incidentally 


A Reversal of Policy 123 


was allusion made to the effect which the relation of the 
Bishop to slavery would have upon the itinerant system 
of the Church. But the resolution offered by James B. 
Finley and J. M. Trimble of Ohio conference as a substitute 
for Griffith’s merely mentioned that Andrew had ‘‘become 
connected with slavery by marriage and otherwise,” while 
the result upon the “itinerant general superintendency” was 
especially emphasized.44_ The resolution provided that 
Andrew should not act as bishop as long as he was in any 
way connected with slavery, on the ground that he would 
not be received in some sections of the country. Apparently, 
it had been forgotten that he had been the presiding officer 
of conferences in Arkansas, lowa, Illinois, Indiana and 
Missouri in 1843, and that he had given entire satisfaction 
to all concerned.** Dr. Drake suggested that bishops be 
assigned particular areas during the succeeding four years, 
but the proposition met with little favor and the debate 
continued.#* The northern attitude was well stated by Cass 
of New Hampshire conference, who declared that northerners 
would refuse to receive Bishop Andrew as their president, 
and that whole conferences would secede if Andrew re- 
mained a bishop.** 


For the South, Dr. George Pierce of Georgia conference, 
one of the most eloquent speakers of his section, put forth 
two propositions. First, he declared that the General Con- 
ference proceedings had brought the whole “Methodist 
Episcopal Church in a position of antagonism to the laws 
of the land.” As he expressed it, the attitude had been 
assumed — “the Church, the Bible, the Discipline, and the 
laws of the land to the contrary notwithstanding, — that we 
have a right to make a man’s membership depend upon the 
conditions of his doing a thing which, as a citizen of the 
state, he has no power or right to do.’’4 


Pierce was equally emphatic on the inexpediency of the 
proposed action. The argument that it was “expedient” 
for Bishop Andrew to resign was refuted, it being shown that 
the consequences would be worse by compelling southern 
conferences to set up for themselves than by permitting 
New England conferences to separate from the Church. In 
reply to the threat of New England that that section would 
withdraw from the Church, he asserted that New England 
had “been for the last twenty years a thorn in the flesh — 


124 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


a messenger of Satan to buffet us! Let her go, and joy go 
with her, for peace will stay behind.’’*® ! 

With the feeling of delegates stirred to the highest pitch, 
it was but natural that measures of compromise should be 
proposed. J. A. Collins moved that Andrew be requested 
to get rid of his slaves within four years.4% When the 
delegates were about to vote on Finley’s resolution, Bishop 
Hedding suggested that the Conference should not meet in 
the afternoon, so that the bishops might “consult together”’ 
and bring in some plan which would solve the problem before 
them. This proposal was agreed to by the delegates “with 
general and great cordiality.’ The bishops’ report was 
presented by Bishop Waugh on, May 31. They recited the 
familiar details of the excitement in the Conference and 
expressed their deep solicitude as to the result. Finally, they 
recommended that further consideration of Bishop Andrew’s 
case be postponed until 1848. They believed that, if this 
were done, the people would be better able to judge as to the 
action that should be taken. They were of the opinion that 
a division of the bishops’ work might be made so that no 
conference or bishop would be embarrassed in any way. 
The bishops justified themselves in their recommendation 
because of. their “strong desire to prevent disunion, and to 
promote harmony in the Church.’’48 


Meanwhile, New England abolitionists were not idle. 
Greatly alarmed lest plans for compromise might be success- 
ful, they met and unanimously agreed that, if Bishop Andrew 
were permitted to continue his work, they would secede and 
request Hedding to become their bishop. The latter was in 
conference with the other bishops and the New Englanders 
feared to call him out, lest their whole program should be 
defeated. But on June 1, before the bishops’ report was 
considered, Hedding met an abolitionist in the vestry of the 
church, where the former was given an account of the action 
of the delegates from New England. Hedding agreed that 
New England conferences would secede if Andrew were not 
disposed of. When the Conference began the consideration 
of the report, Hedding stated that he wished to withdraw his 
name from the document. He said he had signed it because 
he thought it would be a peace measure, ‘“‘but facts had come 
to his knowledge since, which led him to believe that such 
would not be the case.” Waugh immediately weakened and 


A Reversal of Policy 125 


said if the report occasioned a long debate he might withdraw 
his name. Morris desired that his signature should remain 
on the paper “as a testimony that he had done what he 
could to preserve the unity and peace of the Church.” Soule 
had no desire to withdraw his name from a document which 
had already gone forth to the country “through a thousand 
mediums.’#® That the influence which was brought to bear 
upon Bishop Hedding was responsible for the defeat of the 
plan to postpone final action on Bishop Andrew’s case until 
1848 seems probable. For the motion of Nathan Bangs that 
the bishops’ address be tabled prevailed by the narrow mar- 
gin of 95 to 84.°° 

Abolitionists had passed one more point of danger. They 
had defeated a plan for compromise and delay, and the 
possible destruction of their program. The next step was 
to return to Finley’s resolution. This was adopted, June l, 
by a vote of 110 to 68.5! One delegate from each of the 
Ohio, Michigan and Rock River conferences; three from 
Illinois, five from Baltimore, four from Philadelphia,’ and 
two from New Jersey, voted with the South; while only one 
southern delegate, Clark of Texas, cast his vote with the 
North.®? 

But abolitionists were not yet safe. June 3, two Baltimore 
conference delegates, Slicer and Sargent, moved that the 
action of June 1 be considered nothing more than advisory, 
and “that the final disposition of the case of Bishop Andrew 
be postponed until the General Conference of 1848.’ This 
was in harmony with the bishops’ address which had already 
been considered. Again the attempt at compromise failed, 


75 to 68.54 


One more question concerning Bishop Andrew remained 
to be decided. The bishops asked what the status of Andrew 
was to be during the ensuing four years. The Conference 
replied that his name should be retained in the Minutes, 
Hymn-book and Discipline,®® and that he should be supported 
equally with other bishops.°® The Conference also decided 
that Bishop Andrew should be given work when he freed 
himself from all connection with slavery.®? 

The difference between the General Conferences of 1844 
and 1840 is no more clearly seen than in the report of the 
Committee on Slavery, June 7, in. favor of rescinding the 
action of the General Conference of 1840 against receiving 


126 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


colored testimony in church trials in slave states.58 When 
the resolution was presented, Bishop Soule was the presiding 
officer. George Peck, the chairman, says the bishop dis- 
approved the action, scowled and shook his head and 
shrugged his shoulders. When he put the motion “he 
characterized it as a proposal to rescind the ‘Bishops’ reso- 
lutions’ adopted by the last General Conference.” But the 
protest of Soule was without avail, for the resolution was 
adopted, 115 to 40.°9 

As one reviews the legislation of this General Conference 
on slavery, he can find no question upon which abolitionists 
were not entirely successful. To analyze the reasons for 
this complete reversal of policy, the evidence of northern 
and southern writers must be considered. Some northern 
leaders claimed that the Methodist Church itself was 
responsible for this remarkable change. Long gives the 
credit to New England and the West.®° Mudge affirms that 
the victory came because of the educational propaganda 
begun in New England and New Hampshire conferences 
and gradually carried to a few other groups of ministers.®! 
And Gilbert Haven, writing many years afterward, con- 
sidered the result simply the culmination of the work of 
the Church on that subject from the beginning of the 
organization.® 

But the real reason for the success of abolitionists seems 
to have been the fear that radical northern conferences 
would join the Wesleyan Church, Capers declared that, 
since Scott and others seceded, leaders who remained in 
the Methodist Church had sought to convince the people 
“that they could be as ultra as they pleased, and continue 
in the church.”®* In the General Conference it was asserted 
that northern leaders were “pushed on by the people,’’® 
and that if nothing were done, “the people will go off in 
troops to our enemies.’” “Already,” said Brewster, “the 
organization of the Wesleyan Church has produced more 
action in the M. E. Church than could otherwise have been’ 
secured in ten years.’’® 


But one situation is not explained by these writers: namely, 
the coalition of Baltimore and abolition ministers. It is true 
that Baltimore conference had suspended ministers for 
slaveholding but a charge of being abolitionists had never 
been brought against this body of ministers. James Porter, 


A Reversal of Policy 127 


a delegate from New England conference, supplies the reason 
for this union of conservatives and radicals. He emphasizes 
very strongly the fact, to which Capers and Brewster had 
called attention, that the “Scottite” secession had caused a 
veritable panic among those who remained. Ministers of 
Baltimore conference were apparently willing to do their 
share to keep New England conferences from seceding. 
When Porter arrived in New York, he was invited to confer 
with one of the leaders of Baltimore conference, whom 
Porter considered the greatest of the conservative group. 
Porter was asked what New England wanted. He replied 
that his section desired what we have seen they obtained; 
and besides he demanded that abolitionists should not be 
further condemned. He also asked for a stronger stand 
against slavery in the Church.6 The bargain was made that 
Baltimore conference would support New England in the 
first four demands. Other northern delegates were called 
into conference and an agreement reached that all that 
abolitionists absolutely demanded should be done.®’ Since 
abolitionists felt that their cause would be prejudiced if 
they themselves conducted the proceedings, conservatives of 
Baltimore and other conferences agreed “‘to take the laboring 
oar into their own hands’’® and permit delegates from New 
England to use their influence in other ways. This agree- 
ment was carried out in every particular; every attempt on 
the part of southern delegates to stir abolitionists to denounce 
slavery ended in failure.® 

As the work of this Conference is surveyed, several con- 
clusions seem to be entirely justified. First, that the under- 
lying cause of the reversal of the policy of former General 
Conferences was the fear that abolition conferences of New 
England would withdraw from the Church and that this 
dissatisfaction would become general throughout the North. 
Second, when the cases of Harding and Andrew are con- 
sidered, one can not but feel that these men were the victims 
of an unjustifiable attack for politico-religious purposes.” 
This is especially true of Andrew. It is significant that his 
own statement was not challenged. As one reads the docu- 
ment it is apparent that he was not a slaveholder of his own 
volition. Third, while New England had been saved to 
the Church, the attack on Andrew made the situation intol- 
erable for southern delegates. One does not need to speculate 


128 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


as to who was right and who was wrong ;"! the fact remains 
that northern and southern delegates were diametrically 
opposed to each other. Continued unity was impossible. 





1. Professor Norwood (The Schism in the Methodist Church, 1844, 
pp. 59-60) mentions a number of these leaders. George Peck 
probably should be included. 


2. McTyeire, A History of Methodism, p. 640. 

3. Western Christian Advocate, Volume XI., p. 3, col. 1; April 19, 1844, 

4. Journal of the General Conference, 1844, pp. 151-71. 

5. The Evangelical Association was a German organization. 

6. Journal of the Genera] Conference, 1844, pp. 171-86. 

7. Ibid’, pp. 8=12. 

So DIG bape: 

9. American Wesleyan Observer, Volume I., p. 55, col 1; May 7, 
1844. This paper was published solely to give the news of this 
conference. 

10. Journal of the General Conference, 1844, pp. 13-28. Professor Nor- 


wood cites the report of the Committee on Slavery that there 
were ten thousand people who petitioned the Conference against 
slavery. (Norwood, The Schism in the Methodist Church, p. 60). 

11. According to this ‘‘system,’’ ministers could be sent to any point 
in a conference and, if the contention of some leaders, that a 
minister might be transferred at will be allowed, a minister could 
be sent to any appointment within the whole Church. In this 
instance, the fact that Harding was unacceptable to a single town 
or village militated against his worth as a minister anywhere in 
the whole Church. Cf. Norwood, The Schism in the Methodist 
Church, 1844, pp. 61-2. 

12. Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XV., p. 78, col. 4; 
May 15, 1844. ‘‘Thus the great question has been decided in favor 
of Northern principles by more than two to one.’”’ The vote to 
confirm the action of Baltimore conference was 111 to 53. (Nor- 
wood, The Schism in the Methodist Church, p. 62, note 11). 

13. Debates in the General Conference, 1844, p. 29; May 7, 1844. Cf. 
Journal of the General Conference, 1844, p. 240 (Appendix). The 
votes of the northern conferences were: Rock River, 1; Illinois, 
3 (a majority); New Jersey, 2; Philadelphia, 3. 

14. Myers, The Disruption of the M E. Church, p. 42. 

15. Dr. Olin was from New York conference but had lived in the 
South. 

16. Journal of the General Conference, 1844, pp. 42-3. Cf. Norwood, 
The Schism in the Methodist Church, 1844, p. 68; and Myers, The 
Disruption of the M. E. Church, p. 48. A suggestion that three © 
members from the border states be added to the committee was 
defeated. (Debates in General Conference, 1844, p. 54). 

17. Debates in General Conference, 1844, pp. 54-7. 

18. Journal of the General Conference, 1844, pp. 43, 46. 

19. Ibid., pp. 49-50. 

20. Ibid., p. 54. The report reads: ‘‘The Committee of Conference, 
have instructed me (Bishop Soule) to report that after a calm and 
deliberate investigation of the subject submitted to their consid- 
eration, they are unable to agree upon any plan of compromise to 
reconcile the views of the northern and southern Conferences.’’ 

21. Elliott, The Great Secession, cols. 292-6. 

22. Southwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., No. 7; December 13, 
1844. Grisley Rush wrote: ‘‘From the spirit of the gospel of our blessed 
Saviour, the Northern delegates seem to have been very sure that 
a Bishop of the Methodist E, Church had never been connected 
with slavery, but in this perhaps they are mistaken. Upon close 
examination, perhaps, it will be found that Dr. Coke, that great 
and good man, while in a foreign island, was connected with 
slavery; and I am sure that Bishops Asbury and Whatcoat were 


23. 
24, 


25. 


26. 


27. 


A Reversal of Policy 129 


both connected with it; and I doubt whether there has been a 
Bishop in America, since their death, but has been connected with 
slavery—and whether the North, with the South to help them, can 
make a Bishop without connecting him with slavery, for this 
reason:—In 1828, I was searching the Records, in Hillsborough, 
N. C. and in Clerk’s office at that place I found on Record the 
will of Francis Moreland, who died sometime before that date— 
the time not remembered; and in the will of said Moreland, he 
gave to Francis Asbury and Whatcoat, Bishops of the Methodist 
E. Church, and their successors, his negro slaves, over a certain 
age; and all not that age he left to his wife, during her life, and 
at her death to go to said Asbury and Whatcoat, Bishops of the 
Methodist E. Church, and their successors forever.’’ 

Cf. Virginia Pamphlets, Volume 2—An Address to the People of 
the County of Accomac by George P. Scarburgh and 15 others. 
“It was even said that no slaveholder had ever been a Bishop of 
the Methodist Ep. Church. Dr. Coke was a Bishop, and Dr. Coke 
was a slaveholder—made so by voluntary purchase. We assert 
this upon authority which cannot be doubted, and challenge con- 
tradiction. Bishop McKendree at one time fully made up his mind 
to become a slaveholder; but afterwards declined doing so, not 
because of any incompatibility of Slavery with his office of Bishop; 
but because he was advised by his friends that a slave of his own 
would not obey him more readily than if he belonged to another. 
At one time a slave-holder came within one vote of being elected 
a Bishop; and it is believed that Dr. Capers could_have been 
elected in 1832, if the South had united upon him. Bishop Mc- 
Kendree openly manifested his desire that Thomas Douglas be 
elected Bishop, although he knew him to be an extensive slave- 
holder, in a State where emancipation was impracticable. Now 
‘Southern men, holding slaves, have at different times, been 
supported for the Episcopacy, by Northern votes,’ ever since the 
organization of the Church.’ None but the wilfully blind, therefore, 
can fail to see that this uncompromising hostility to a slaveholding 
Bishop, of which we have lately heard so much, is of modern 
origin.’’ 

Supra, pp. 67-8, footnotes 28-31. 

Supra, p. 98. Bishop Andrew makes it perfectly clear that 
slaveholding was never broached to him when he was elected 
Bishop in 1832. ‘‘But I was nominated and elected. No one asked 
me if I was a slaveholder; not one asked me my principles on the 
subject; and no one dared to ask a pledge of me, or it would have 


been met as it would have deserved.’ (Lee and Smith, The 
Debates of the General Conference of the M. E. Church, May, 1844, 
p. 206). 


For New England conference, see Elliott, The Great Secession, 
col, 251; and Myers, The Disruption of the M..E. Church, p. 32. 
For Maine conference, see The True Wesleyan, Volume IL, p. 169, 
col. 5; October 28, 1843. For Providence conference, see Zion’s 
Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XIV., p. 108, col, 1; July 
5, 1843. 

Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XIV., p. 170, cols. 
3-4; October 25, 1843. Abolitionists and other northerners seemed 
to lose sight of the fact that if their position were accepted by 
the Church, northern bishops would be no more acceptable to the 
South than slaveholding bishops would be in the North. 
Pittsburg Christian Advocate, Volume XL, p. 18, cols. 6-7; Febru- 
ary 21, 1844, ‘Dr. Capers will pardon the liberty we take in 
suggesting, that tho’ no man is’ worthy of the office who liberates 
his slaves to be elected a bishop, yet we think it can well be 
supposed, a brother elected to that office might avail himself of 
the position to liberate his slaves by changing his residence from 
South to North, when his relations to the Church should not 
render a Southern residence necessary. Such a movement should 
not subject him to the charge of profanity. Our individual opinion | 


130 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


28. 
29. 


30. 
. Elliott, The Great Secession, col. 302; and Debates in General] 


32. 
33. 


34. 
30. 


is, that the South needs the residence of some of our bishops, and 
that they should be Southern men. But as slaveholders would 
not be received in that office with undivided cordiality in Northern 
Conferences, and as our superintendency is general as well as itine- 
rant, it is a question the approaching conference will not fail to 
consider, whether it would be expedient to elect any one to that 
office, however otherwise worthy, who holds slaves.’’ 

ayers Christian Advocate, Volume VI., p. 192, col. 5; May 19, 
Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, p. 42. Elliott says 
that the fact that Andrew held slaves was not known in the 
middle and northern conferences until it was noised about by 
preachers on the way to General Conference. (Elliott, The Great 
Secession, col, 295). 


Norwood, The Schism in the Methodist Church, 1844, p. 69. 


Conference, 1844, pp. 112-15. Dr. Longstreet’s account is as fol- 
lows: ‘‘When he (Andrew) reaches here he finds the conference 
in commotion; he is pained and agonized; he convenes the dele- 
gates from the slave-holding conferences, and, for the sake of 
peace, proposes to resign; but we to a man, without a dissenting 
voice, declared to him ‘that, if he sought the peace of the Church 
by that course, he would be disappointed of his object; for that 
his resignation to appease the clamor of the abolitions would but 
spread general discontent through the whole south. We can not 
lie down and see you deposed. If it has come to this, that being 
connected with slavery disqualifies you, we too are disqualified.’ ”’ 
Cf. Norwood, The Schism in the Methodist Church, p. 67. 
Norwood, The Schism in the Methodist Church, 1844, p. 68. 
Journal of the General Conference, 1844, p. 58. These read: 

“Whereas it is currently reported, and generally understood, 
that one of the Bishops of the M. E. Church has become connected 
with slavery; and whereas it is due to this General Conference to 
have a proper understanding of the matter; therefore, 

‘Resolved, That the Committee on Episcopacy be instructed to 
ascertain the facts in the case and report the results of their 
investigation to this body to-morrow morning.’”’ 

The fact that the investigation had already been made is con- 
clusively shown by Professor Norwood. (See his Schism in the 
Methodist Church, 1844, p. 69). 

Debates in General Conference, 1844, p. 68. 
Ibid., p. 73. Bishop Andrew’s very important statement is given 
in full: 

“In reply to your inquiry, I submit the following statement of 
all the facts bearing on my connexion with slavery. Several 
years since (Southern Christian Advocate, Volume VIII., p. 26, 
col. 2; fall of 1844, says about 1837) an old lady, of Augusta, 
Georgia, bequeathed to me a mulatto girl, in trust that I should 
take care of her until she should be nineteen years of age; that 
with her consent I should then send her to Liberia; and that in case 
of her refusal, I should keep her, and make her as free as the 
laws of the State of Georgia permit. When the time arrived, she 
refused to go to Liberia, and of her own choice remains legally my 
slave, although I derive no pecuniary profit from her, (An inter- 
view was held with the slave girl by A. B. Longstreet and George 
W. Lane, to determine her wishes. This was on December 4, 1841. 
See Smith, Life and Letters of Andrew, pp. 312-13) she continues 
to live in her own house on my lot; and has been, and still is at 
perfect liberty to go to a free State at her pleasure; but the laws 
of the state will not permit her emancipation, nor admit such a 
deed of emancipation to record, and she refuses to leave the State. 
In her case, therefore, I have been made a slaveholder legally, 
but without my own consent. 

‘“2dly. About five years since, the mother of my former wife 
left to her daughter, not to me, a negro boy; and as my wife died 


36. 


37. 


38. 


39. 


A Reversal of Policy 131 


without a will more than two years since, by the laws of the 
State he becomes legally my property. In this case, as in the 
former, emancipation is impracticable in the State; but he shall 
be at liberty to leave the State whenever I shall be satisfied that 
he is prepared to provide for himself, or I can have sufficient 
security that he will be protected and provided for in the place 
to which he may go. 


“3dly. In the month of January last I married my present wife, 
she being at the time possessed of slaves, inherited from her 
former husband’s estate, and belonging to her. Shortly after my 
marriage, being unwilling to become their owner, regarding them 
as strictly hers, and the law not permitting their emancipation, 
I secured them to her by a deed of trust. 


“It will be obvious to you, from the above statement of facts, 
that I have neither bought nor sold a slave; that in the only two 
instances in which I am legally a slaveholder, emancipation is im- 
practicable. As to the servants owned by my wife, I have no legal 
responsibility in the premises, nor could my wife emancipate them 
if she desired to do so. I have thus plainly stated all the facts 
in the case, and submit the statement for the consideration of the 
General Conference.’’ 


How a member of the General Conference misstated the facts 
may be seen from the following: ‘In January, 1844, Bishop An- 
drew married a widow lady, who owned slaves by a former hus- 
band. He took no step toward setting them free, but rather took 
steps to have their freedom placed entirely beyond his power.’’ 
(Elliott, The Great Secession, p. 295). Rather it was a case of 
Andrew not permitting slaves to come to him when he might 
have become their owner. Elliott omits the fact that it was 
legally impossible to free slaves in Georgia. 

Debates in General Conference, 1844, pp. 74-5. The purpose of the 
delay was to give delegates from each section an opportunity to 
meet separately. Dr. Bond took occasion to emphatically deny 
that northerners were attempting to force the South into secession. 
He considered that such a scheme was far from the minds of 
northerners. (Ibid., p. 74). 

Ibid., p. 82. Their statement is as follows: 

“Whereas, the Rev. James O. Andrew, one of the Bishops of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, has became connected with slavery; 
and whereas it has been, from the origin of said Church, a settled 
policy and the invariable usage to elect no person to the office of 
Bishop who was embarrassed with this ‘great evil,’’ as under 
such circumstances it would be impossible for a Bishop to exercise 
the functions and perform the duties assigned to a General Super- 
intendent with acceptance in that large portion of his charge in 
which slavery does not exist; and whereas Bishop Andrew was 
himself nominated by our brethren of the slaveholding States, and 
elected by the General Conference of 1832, as a candidate who, 
though living in the midst of a slaveholding population, was never- 
theless free from all personal connection with slavery; and whereas 
this is, of all periods in our history as a Church, the one least 
favorable to such an innovation upon the practice and usage of 
Methodism as to confide a part of the itinerant General Super- 
intendency to a slaveholder; therefore, : 

“Resolved, That the Rev. James O. Andrew be, and he is hereby, 
affectionately requested to resign his office as one of the Bishops 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church.’’ 

Ibid., 1844, p. 84. This was done in spite of the protest of Slicer 
who said if the rule were suspended they might ‘‘all write home 
that they would be home ‘on or about’ the 4th of July.’’ 

“We do not believe that the connection of Bishop Andrew with 
slavery was criminal, if tried by the rules and common sentiments 
of the M. HE. Church.’ Bishop Andrew had not disobeyed the 
General Rule “‘for he has neither bought nor sold’’ slaves. (Lee 


132 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


40. 


41. 


42. 
43. 


and Smith, Debates of the General Conference, 1844, p. 337). ‘No 
one can deny that if there are any circumstances in which it is 
impracticable to emancipate slaves, those are the very circum- 
stances in which the Bishop found himself a slaveholder.” (Ibid., 
p. 338). In regard to the claim that it’ was the settled policy of 
the Church not to elect slaveholders as bishops, Lee and Smith 
said: ‘‘There is no such written policy, and every one knows that 
if it exists it has not been settled, for the South have been all the 
while contending and striving for a slaveholding Bishop, while 
hundreds of Northern men petitioned this very conference against 
the election of a slaveholder to the Episcopacy.”’ (Ibid., pp. 343-4). 
Lee and Smith were Wesleyans. 

James Porter says: ‘“‘This resolution was directly to the point and 
should have been adopted. But it was a little too explicit for the 
Conference and the times.’’ (The Methodist Quarterly Review, 
Volume LIII., p. 245; April, 1871). 

Debates in General Conference, 1844, p. 100. Finley’s resolution 
was as follows: ‘‘Whereas, the Discipline of our Church forbids 
the doing of anything calculated to destroy our itinerant general 
superintendency, and whereas, Bishop Andrew has become con- 
nected with slavery by marriage and otherwise, and this act having 
drawn after it circumstances which, in the estimation of the 
General Conference, will greatly embarrass the exercise of his 
office as an itinerant general superintendent, if not in some places 
entirely prevent it; therefore, 

“Resolved, That it is the sense of this General Conference that 
he desist from the exercise of this office so long as this impedi- 
ment remains.”’ 

Smith, Life and Letters of Andrew, pp. 322-30. 

Debates in Generali Conference, 1844, p. 106. ‘‘Hrastus,’’ a southern 
correspondent, made the same suggestion in 1843: ‘I would pro- 
pose then, that the whole work be divided into districts or dioceses, 
I care nought for the name; and that, to each district a Bishop 
be assigned by the General Conference, such appointments to be 
permanent, or subject to the revision of each General Conference. 
These Bishops may be nominated or elected by the delegates of 
each district.’? (Southern Christian Advocate, Volume VI., p. 192, 


“col. 5; May 19, 1843): 
44, 
45. 
46. 


Ibid., 1844, p. 109. 
Thiduap sy 10: 
Ibid., pp. 110-11. Pierce said: ‘‘The southern Church has nothing 
to fear, and she has nothing to ask on this subject. As far as 
we are concerned, sir, the greatest blessing that could befall us 
would be a division of this union, There, sir, at the south, we 
dwell in peace, and the good Shepherd watches the flock and 
guards us from all harm. There are no jarring strings, no dis- 
cordant sounds, no incarnate emissaries of the evil one going about 
seeking whom they may devour ged 

Other important addresses were given by Capers (Shipp, History 
of Methodism in South Carolina, pp. 479-92); and Henry Bascom, 
whom George Peck characterized as a ‘‘wonderful man’’ and a 
“prince of orators, endowed with an affluence of thought and 
language unsurpassed by the greatest names of this age.’’ (Peck, 
Life and Times of G. Peck, p. 252). For the North, several names 
stand out prominently. When George Peck addressed the General 
Conference on May 25. the New York Post said ‘‘that he spoke in 
a strain of eloquence seldom equalled on that floor. His panegyric 
on New England was as beautiful as just.’”’ (Pittsburg Christian 
Advocate, Volume XI., p. 80, col. 4; June 5, 1844) Roche (Life of 
John Price Durbin, p. 140) singles out Durbin and L. L. Hamline 
as two of the most important northerners. That the latter was 
one of the most’ powerful debaters in the Conference is fully at- 
tested by the fact that Myers takes so much trouble to refute his 
arguments. Hamline considered especially the power of the Gene- 
ral Conference to depose a bishop. Southern delegates took the 


63. 


64. 


A Reversal of Policy 133 


negative view but Hamline affirmed that the power rested with 
the General Conference. (Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. 
Church, pp. 68 ff.) The address of Hamline has assumed an im- 
portance which none of the other speeches did because his argu- 
ments have been used to justify deposing bishops since that time. 
The limitation of the power of bishops constitutes another chapter 
in the growth of democracy in the Methodist Episcopal Church, 


. Methodist Quarterly Review, Volume LIII., p. 246; April, 1871. 
. Journal of General Conference, 1844, pp. 75-6. See also, Sutton, 


The Methodist Church Property Case, pp. 64-5. 


. Methodist Quarterly Review, Volume LIII., p. 247; April, 1871. 


Cf. Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, p. 65. 


. Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, pp. 44-5. Myers says: 


“the South’ resisted ‘‘this section as one man. It saw then that 
the last hope for Southern Methodism, in that General Conference, 
had fied.’’ A . 


. Journal of General Conference, 1844, pp. 838-4. 
. Smith, History of Methodism in Georgia and Florida, p. 381. It 


is interesting to note that Clark was contemplating moving from 
Texas to the North because of his family’s health! 


. Debates in General Conference, 1844, p. 192. Cf. Methodist 


Quarterly Review, Volume LIII., p. 247; April, 1871. 


. Myers, The Disruption of the M, E. Church, p, 45. 

. This was carried, 155 to 1%. 

. The vote was 152 to 14. 

. The vote was 103 to 67. 

. Journal of General Conference, 1844, p. 123. This had been de- 


manded by some northern conferences. For Providence conference 
see Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XIV., p. 108, col. 
1; July 5, 1848, For Maine conference, see The True Wesleyan, 
Volume I., p. 169, col. 5; October 28, 18438. 


. Peck, Life and Times of G. Peck, pp. 243-4. 
. Long, Pictures of Slavery in Church and State, p. 31. 


Mudge, History of the New England Conference, p. 295. 


. The Liberator, Volume XXXI., p. 52, col. 4; March 29, 1861. He 


says: ‘“‘The Church has contended ceaselessly and mightily for the. 
great reform. In 1844, after ten years of faithful labor by a portion 
of her ministry and laity, she staid the proud march of the Slave 
Power, sacrificing her, at that time, most influential section, rather 
than allow one, whose wife held slaves, to preside in her Confer- 
ences. It was a great victory, and resulted in the secession of 
the slavery loving section.’’ 

Southern Christian Advocate, Volume VII., p. 198, col. 3; May 
24, 1844. The statement of Capers was made May 18, and is as 
follows: 

“Tt appears, that since the secession of Scott, Sunderland and 
others, on the rabid principle of ultra-abolitionism, many of the 
preachers have leaned that way, for the purpose of persuading the 
people who are sympathizing with the seceders, that they could 
be as ultra as they pleased, and continue in the church.’’ 

Lee and Smith, Debates of General Conference, 1844, p. 33. These 
writers also made this comment on the General Conference: ‘‘The 
appeal of Mr. Harding and the case of Bishop Andrew compelled 
the Conference to act on the subject, and to do it so as to give 
satisfaction to the North, who had been. promised that every 
thing should be done, and, at the same time, satisfying the South, 
who had been assured that nothing would be done, was not an 


_easy task.” (Ibid., p. 328). 


65. 
66. 


The True Wesleyan, Volume II., p. 96, col. 6; June 15, 1844. 

Methodist Quarterly Review, Volume LIII., pp. 234-43; April, 1871. 
The demands were: ‘“‘That Bishop Andrew should be required to 
purge himself of slavery or vacate the episcopal office, 2. That 
Baltimore should be sustained in the case of Mr. Harding. 3. That 
the infamous Few resolution against allowing colored members to 
testify against white persons in Church trials should be rescinded. 


134 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


68. 


6 


7 


~- 


oa 


iP 


0. 


pH 


4. That no further abuse of abolitionists shall be perpetrated. 5. 
We added that we wanted several other things more decidedly 
antislavery in their character, but could hardly expect them under 
the circumstances.”’ 


. That is, the conviction of Andrew was determined upon before 


the trial started. That corruption was not absent from this Con- 
ference is shown from the record of the election of bishops. On 
the first ballot, no candidate had a majority. On the second, 
more votes were cast than there were delegates and Bishop Hedd- 
ing ‘pronounced the election of E. S. Janes and L. E, Hamline 
void, on account of the illegal votes cast, and directed another 
balloting.’’ The result was no better. ‘‘Prior to the third ballotting, 
the Secretaries were ordered to call the list; and each man, as 
his name was called, was directed to come up, and deposit his 
vote for two Bishops.’’ ‘“‘During this ballot two tickets were found 
together, and ordered to be reserved until the tickets were counted. 
When the count was completed, it was ascertained that there 
were 177 tickets (the full number) without them, and they were 
cast aside.’”’ (Journal of General Conference, 1844, p. 128). 

For a similar conclusion, see Norwood, The Schism in the Metho- 
dist Church, 1844, p. 77. Professor Norwood relates that a south- 
erner asked an abolishment why the radicals said so little. The 
reply was: “Oh! we have nothing to do now. The Baltimore Con- 
ference is doing our work for us. And they will get all the odium; 
and we all the benefit.’”” The subsequent history proved that the 
statement was a correct appraisal of the situation in both Balti- 
more and New England conferences. 

Methodist Quarterly Review, Volume LIII., pp. 242-3; April, 1871. 
Cf. Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, p. 42. The first 
is a northern view; the second is a southern statement. Inasmuch 
as Myers is cited several times as an authority, it may be ad- 
visable to state that he uses Porter’s account and proves his 
contention from the statements of the New Englander. 

In 1850, Webster said: ‘“‘That separation (of the Methodist Church) 
was brough about by differences of opinion upon this particular 
subject of slavery . . . The result was against my wishes 
and my hopes. I have read all their proceedings and all their 
arguments; but I have never yet been able to come to the con- 
clusion that there was any real ground for that separation; in 
other words, that any good could be produced by that separation. 
I must say I think there was some want of candor and charity.” 
(Webster, Writings and Speeches, Volume X., p. 63) This was a 
part of Webster’s famous speech on the Compromise of 1850, 
March 7, 1850, which contributed to the defeat of Webster for 
the presidency in 1852. ; 

See Professor Norwood’s attempt to decide the question, whether 
or not Bishop Andrew should have married a woman who held 
slaves and whether or not he should have resigned, voluntarily, 
his position as bishop. (Schism in the Methodist Church, pp. 70- 
72). It seems to me that he is in serious error in holding that 
he was ‘“‘to blame for connecting himself with slavery,’’ inasmuch 
as the legislation of the General Conference of 1840, if not that 
of the entire period of the history of the Methodist Bpiscopal 
Church, attached no immortality to the holding of slaves by 
bishops. The proceedings of the General Conference of 1844 bear 
the marks of expediency and the worst of politics rather than of 


justice and fair dealing. 


PART III 
THE EVER WIDENING BREACH 


wal baie! 


ia Avy tate ty ss Me by 
j ‘ 
res 4, Wy 7" 


‘ oi! 
ORO a AOU ran 8 
x! Raat ir ry ie cs ‘ 


‘ 





CHAPTER XI 


THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH 


Division of the Methodist Episcopal Church was not a 
new topic. Wilbur Fisk. had predicted it as early as March, 
1835.4 Some delegates to the General Conference of 1836 
also favored a separation from the Church unless abolitionists 
could be silenced ;? while, after the Conference, a number 
of southerners insistently called for a new Church.? In the 
bishops’ address to the. General Conference of 1840 it was 
stated that many abolitionists had refrained from extreme 
action because they knew it would lead to “the division of 
the Church.”* And previous to the General Conference of 
1844, William Capers had written that division was possible 
though undesirable unless northerners forced the issue.® 

As might readily be imagined, the debates in the General 
Conference of 1844 renewed the thought of division. Not 
only southern delegates but those from the North as well 
admitted that the Church faced secession or division. In 
none of the statements of southern delegates is a desire for 
division expressed; on the contrary, it was with evident 
regret that they contemplated the division of the Church 
into two independent bodies. But the action in regard to 
Bishop Andrew made it impossible for southern ministers to 
remain in the old organization.® 

The Finley resolution relative to Bishop Andrew was 
adopted June 1; two days later, Dr. Capers submitted a 
plan of separation,’ which provided for two General Con- 
ferences, but left the Book Concern and the Mission work the 
common possessions of the two bodies. June 5, Capers re- 
ported that the committee of nine, to whom the proposal 
had been submitted, were unable to agree upon any recom- 
mendation which they considered would be acceptable to the 
General Conference. 

The failure of this plan of compromise resulted in a dec- 
laration by southern delegates? which was presented by 
A. B. Longstreet. In this document it was stated that the 


137 


138 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


action taken in Bishop Andrew’s case and the “agitation on 
the subject of slavery and abolition in a portion of the 
Church” made it impossible for southern conferences to 
longer submit to the General Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church. This declaration was not presented as 
a resolution; it was simply a statement of the southern 
position and asked nothing. But the General Conference, 
after considerable debate, refused to admit that the action 
in the case of Andrew was “extra-judicial”, and reprimanded 
the southern delegates for their action.1® Dr. Elliott moved 
that the declaration of the southern delegates be submitted 
to a “Committee of Nine,”? the personnel of which was almost 
the same as that to which Capers’ suggestion had been re- 
ferred.14 On the same day, J. B. McFerrin of Tennessee 
conference and Tobias Spicer of Troy conference offered 
the following resolution: “Resolved, That the committee ap- 
pointed to take into consideration the communication of the 
Delegates from the Southern Conferences be instructed — 
provided they cannot, in their judgment, devise for an ami- 
cable adjustment of the difficulties now existing in the Church 
on the subject of slavery — to devise, if possible, a constitu- 
tional plan for a mutual and friendly division of the 
Church.”!?. Crowder moved that the word “constitutional” 
be stricken out, but his sugestion was not adopted.!* 


The ‘‘Committee of Nine’ reported June 7. On the 
following day the report was considered and, on motion of 
Dr. Elliott, adopted.1* By the first resolution, the delegates 
agreed to a peaceable division of the membership of the 
Church. Adherence to one Church or the other was to be 
determined by a majority vote of the members of “societies, 
stations, and Conferences,” and the territory north or south 
of the division line was to be inviolable. By the second 
resolution, ministers were permitted to choose between the 
two churches, “without blame” in either case. The succeed- 
ing nine resolutions provided for a just and equitable div- 
ision of the Church property, while the last requested the 
bishops to submit the third resolution, providing for a_ 
change of the sixth restrictive rule, to annual conferences 
for their concurrence. 

In view of the later action of northern conferences, it is 
advisable to note the votes on the resolutions. The first 
carried, 146 to 16, the delegates of non-slaveholding states 


The Methodist Episcopal Church, South 139 


registering ninety-five of the majority vote. The second 
resolution passed, 139 to 17; while the third, which provided 
for the reference to annual conferences of the question of 
changing the sixth restrictive article, had only ten votes 
in the negative. The fifth proposition passed, 151 to 13. 
All other resolutions were adopted, but the result is not 
recorded. It is to be noted that these changes, radical as 
they undoubtedly were — were approved by majorities of 
from twenty-eight to thirty-eight from northern delegates 
alone, over the combined vote of southern and ultra-abolition 
delegates.15 In regard to the third resolution, which was 
to be voted upon by annual conferences, the General Con- 
ference needed to give a two-thirds majority in order to make 
such a change valid. As Myers shows, “the Northern 
members alone gave within nine votes of the two-thirds 
majority required for said change.’’!® 

Between the delegates of the two sections, goodwill and 
mutual forbearance seemed much in evidence. That they 
separated is not strange; that they did it peaceably seems 
incredible. True, the actual separation was contingent upon 
the necessity which southern conferences might find for such 
action, but no one in the General Conference of 1844 ex- 
pected to see southerners sitting as delegates in the General 
Conference of 1848. 

On the day following the adjourment of the General Con- 
ference, the delegates of southern conferences held a meeting 
in New York. Their purpose was to secure uniformity of 
action in their annual conferences, and to forestall hasty 
procedure. They recommended to the conferences which they 
represented that a convention be held in Louisville, Ken- 
tucky, May 1, 1845; and that conferences choose delegates 
who would represent as far as possible the sentiment of the 
people in their territory on the question of the division of the 
Church.1* They also issued an “Address” to southern Metho- 
dists,18 in which they reviewed the action of the General 
Conference, made a defense of their opposition to the North, 
and called attention to the situation faced by the South. 
The Plan of Separation was approved as the best that could 
then be devised. They emphatically stated that the Plan 
did not make the decision as to whether or not division should 
take place, but that the decision was left to the southern 
conferences. They pointed out that division seemed inevit- 


140 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


able, and the question which must be decided was whether it 
should take place at once or at a later time. Excitement in 
the consideration of the question was discouraged, while a 
fair weighing of all the evidence on both sides was urged. 

While the decision was to be made by southern confer- 
ences, the delegates believed that they had had exceptional 
opportunities to reach the proper conclusion. Since they 
were of the opinion that the South would expect them to give 
their best judgment on the situation, they stated that the 
continued agitation of the subjects of slavery and abolition 
would render it impossible for southerners to remain in the 
Church and still have access to the slave population for the 
purpose of giving them religious instruction. It would also 
be impossible to deal with the slaveholders. They affirmed 
that they had sought to have the decision in Bishop Andrew’s 
case deferred until 1848 but had met defeat on that 
proposition. 

It will be noted that, according to the “Plan of Separation,” 
the division of the Methodist Episcopal Church depended 
upon the action of conferences in slaveholding states.1% In 
accordance with this provision and the suggestion of southern 
delegates, southern conferences took up the question as to 
whether or not they should send delegates to the Louisville 
Convention. The answer was almost unanimous in favor 
of the proposal. Much was said about the illegality of the 
proceedings in the case of Bishop Andrew and the necessity 
of a separate organization. That the conferences expressed 
the views of the lay members may be judged by the fact 
that the resolutions of local church organizations were almost 
entirely in favor of the southern contention.”° 


With public opinion so solidly behind them, the delegates 
met May 1, 1845, at Louisville, Kentucky, not primarily to 
debate the issue but to arrange the form of the new church 
organization. The Convention was called to order by William 
Capers, while Lovick Pierce acted as temporary president.?} 
On the first day, attending bishops were invited to preside.” 
Bishops Andrew and Soule readily agreed to do so. The 
latter said he realized that a separation was inevitable and — 
that his influence had been used to bring about the division 
as peaceably as possible. He advised moderation in all their 
deliberations and a strict compliance with the “Plan of 
Separation.”2° Morris, who had spent two months just 


The Methodist Episcopal Church, South 141 


prior to the Convention lecturing in Kentucky in an attempt 
to prevent disunion, and had come to Louisville for the same 
purpose, refused to comply with the request.**- His refusal 
may have been due to the fact that he considered the pros- 
pect of continued union hopeless; it may have been due to 
his sensitiveness on a charge of slaveholding which had been 
brought against him.*° At any rate, his endeavors at Louis- 
ville were entirely fruitless, except to involve him in trouble 
with leaders of his own Church.*4 

The real’ work of the Convention was the division of the 
Church. A committee, consisting of two delegates from each 
annual conference, was ordered to consider the whole ques- 
tion and report to the Convention. They were later ordered 
to consider whether anything had transpired during the 
preceding year to make separation unnecessary ; and whether 
a resolution should be adopted which would provide for 
reunion of the two branches of Methodism, should the 
northern Church meet the demands of the South. Finally, 
if the Committee believed that there was no probability that 
the northern Church would change its attitude towards slav- 
ery and the South, they were ordered to report in favor 
of division.*® None of these resolutions seems to have 
excited much comment and they were adopted with almost 
no opposition. 

The report of the “Commitee on Organization” was in 
conformity with the sentiments expressed in the instructions 
of the Convention. They declared that it was “right, 
expedient, and necessary” to organize a new Church, which 
should be entirely separate from the Methodist Episcopal 
Church; and that the control of southern conferences by 
the General Conference of that Church was at an end. 
They favored retaining the same doctrines and Discipline 
. by which they had previously been governed, except for 
verbal changes that might be necessary for another organi- 
zation. They also provided for reunion with the northern 
Church, “whether such proposed union be jurisdictional or 
connectional.”** Without discussion, apparently, these reso- 
lutions were adopted; the first with only three dissenting 
votes, and the second unanimously.?8 


On the first day of the Convention, Bishops Soule and 
Andrew had been invited to preside over the body; May 19, 
they were requested to join the southern Methodists and act 


142 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


as bishops of the newly organized Church.*® In reply, Soule 
said he felt it his: duty to carry on his work as it had been 
arranged by a meeting of bishops in New York. But he 
considered that he would be at perfect liberty to unite with 
the southern Church after the meeting of the first General 
Conference of that organization. The letter of Andrew to 
the Convention was an enthusiastic endorsement of all that 
had been done by that body, and an acceptance of the invita- 
tion which had been extended him.?? 

Since Andrew was the only bishop of the Southern Church 
at this time, it was his duty to issue the first “Pastoral 
Address” to the people of that section. The Address noted 
the fact that the new organization had been demanded by 
ninety-five per cent of the Methodists of the South, and 
affirmed that most of the minority were not opposed to the 
majority, but lived in sections of the country where the 
conflict between slavery and abolitionism was not so acute. 
The work of the Convention was reviewed and declared 
very satisfactory. Attention was called to the trouble which 
might ensue on the border. This was deprecated as un- 
desirable and un-Christian; and ministers and people were 
urged to restore as completely as possible the good fellowship 
which had obtained before the division took place. Only in 
organization, not in spirit, should there be a division between 
the two sections of Methodism.®° 


The necessity of a separation of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church had been shown to the satisfaction of southern 
Methodists. That the organization of the new Church had 
been in accordance with the Plan of Separation is evident 
from the fact that the bishops of northern Church proceeded 
to re-arrange their “plan of visitation” so that Bishop Morris 
presided over northern conferences which had previously 
been assigned to Bishop Soule, while the latter took southern 
conferences over which Bishop Morris was to have pre- 
sided.*!_ At the same meeting, which was held in New York, 
July 2, 1845, northern bishops declared that the report of 
the Committee of Nine was binding on them so far as their 
administration was concerned ; and they proceeded to arrange 
for the border societies to declare their church preference.*” 
Thus, separation was recognized as “an accomplished fact.’’>* 


The Louisville Convention had also made provision for the 
first General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 


The Methodtst Episcopal Church, South 143 


South, to be held at Petersburg, Virginia, May 1, 1846.28 
Since Bishop Soule had not yet formally joined the southern 
Methodist Church, he did not preside at the opening ses- 
sions. But on the second day he expressed himself as 
greatly pleased with the course events had taken, and affirmed 
his adherence to the Church, South, in accordance with the 
right granted by the Plan of Separation. May 7, he was 
recognized as a bishop of the southern Church.?5 


The problem which had been disposed of was as old as 
the Church itself. In the early years of Methodism, Asbury 
had been compelled to make a choice between an uncompro- 
mising stand against slavery and the consequent loss of 
southern support, on the one hand; and compromising with 
that which he considered, in the words of Wesley, “the 
sum of all villainies” and thereby keep the South within the 
fold of the Church. His decision was in favor of the latter 
course, and for half a century thereafter the South absolutely 
dominated the official action of Methodism. With the 
agitation which was begun by Garrison, Scott and other 
abolitionists, it became increasingly evident that Asbury’s 
compromise could not endure. The Methodist Church began 
to disintegrate. The Wesleyans seceded, and in 1844 south- 
ern conferences were, by almost unanimous votes, given 
permission to organize a separate Church. This was done 
at Louisville and at Petersburg; and northern bishops not 
only made no objection but actually sanctioned what had 
been done. In all these arrangements, that which stands 
out most clearly, is the apparently genuine Christian spirit 
which actuated leaders on both sides of the line of division. 


Holdich, Life of Wilbur Fisk, p. 326. 
Supra, p. 63 
Supra, p. 66. 
Supra, p. 94. 
Elliott, The Great Secession, cols. 249-50. Capers wrote: ‘‘As to 
secession or division, they are words which I have never per- 
mitted to come into my vocabulary. I almost feel like I am 
committing treason to write them here in my study. No calamity 
could so afflict me as to separate from the great body of our 
common Methodism. Life itself is not half so dear as is this 
union. If our brethren cut us off we must submit to it as the 
last of evils; but the sin shall be on their heads, not ours.” 
6. Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, pp. 88-92. 
7. Debates in General Conference, 1844, pp. 192-3; Myers, The Dis- 
ruption of the M. E. Church, p. 96; Sutton, The Methodist Church 
.Property Case, p. 67; and Shipp, Methodism in South Carolina, 
pp. 492-3. 

The plan was as follows: 


oR OS BS 


144 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


‘Be it resolved by the delegates of all the annual conferences 
assembled: 

“That we recommend to the annual conferences to suspend the 
constitutional restrictions which limit the powers of the General 
Conference so far, and so far only, as to allow of the following 
alterations in the government of the Church, namely:— 

“That the Methodist Episcopal Church in these United States 
and territories, and the republic of Texas, shall constitute two 
General Conferences, to meet quadrennially, the one at some place 
south, and the other north of the line which now divides between 
the States commonly designated as free States and those in which 
slavery exists. 

“2. That each one of the two General Conferences thus consti- 
tuted shall have full powers, under the limitations and restrictions 
which are now of force and binding on the General Conference, 
to make rules and regulations for the Church, within their terri- 
torial limits respectively, and to elect bishops for the same. 

“3. That the two General Conferences aforesaid, shall have 
jurisdiction as follows:—-The Southern Conferences shall compre- 
hend the States of Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri, and the 
States and Territories lying southerly thereto, and also the re- 
public of Texas, to be known and designated by the title of the 
‘Southern General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church 
of the United States.’ And the Northern General Conference to 
comprehend all those States and Territories lying north of the 
States of Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri, as above, to be known 
and designated by the title of the ‘Northern General Conference 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States.’ 

“4. And be it further resolved, That as soon as three-fourths 
of all the members of all the annual conferences voting on these 
resolutions, shall approve the same, the said Southern and North- 
ern General Conferences shall be deemed as having been consti- 
tuted by such approval; and it shall be competent for the Southern 
annual conferences to elect delegates to said Southern General 
Conference, to meet in the city of Nashville, Tennessee, on the 
first of May, 1848; or sooner, if a majority of two-thirds of the 
members of the annual conferences composing that General Con- 
ference shall desire the same. 

“5. And be it further resolved, as aforesaid, That the Book 
Concerns at New York and Cincinnati shall be held and conducted 
as the property and for the benefit of al] the annual conferences ag 
heretofore:—the editors and agents to be elected once in four years 
at the time of the session of the Northern General Conference, 
and the votes of the Southern General Conference to be cast by 
the delegates of that Conference attending the Northern for that 
purpose. 

“6. And be it further resolved, That our Church organization 
for foreign missions shall be maintained and conducted jointly 
between the two General Conferences as one Church, in such manner’ 
as shall be agreed upon from time to time between the two great. 
branches of the Church as represented in the said two Conferences.’ 
It is to be noted that certain features of the plan have, in prin- 
ciple, been adopted by the two Methodist branches in the plans 
for reunion. 

8. Debates in General Conference, 1844, p. 200. This declaration 
reads: ‘‘The delegates of the conferences in the slaveholding states 
take leave to declare to the General Conference of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, that the continued agitation on the subject of 
slavery and abolition in a portion of the Church—the frequent 
action on that subject in the General Conference,—and especially 
the extra-judicial proceedings against Bishop Andrew, which re- 
sulted, on Saturday last, in the virtual suspension of him from 
his office as superintendent,—must produce a state of things in 
the south which renders a continuance of the jurisdiction of that 
General Conference over these conferences inconsistent with the 


13. 
14. 


The Methodist Episcopal Church, South 145 


success of the ministry in the slaveholding states.’’ See also, 
Norwood, Schism in the Methodist Church, p, 84 for an explana- 
tion of the origin of the declaration. 

Debates in General Conference, 1844, pp. 201-3. 


. Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, pp. 96-7. 
. The personnel was: Paine, Winans, Crowder, Porter, Filmore, 


Akers, Hamline, Bangs and Sargent. The first three were south- 
erners. 


. Myers, The Disruption of the M. HE. Church, p. 98 See also, 


Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, p. 68. 

Sutton, Methodist Church Property Case, p. 68. 

Journal of General Conference, 1844, pp. 135-7. So important are 
these provisions that they are given in full: 

‘Whereas, a declaration has been presented to this General Con- 
ference, with the signatures of fifty-one delegates of the body, 
from thirteen Annual Conferences in the slaveholding states, 
representing that, for various reasons enumerated, the objects 
and purposes of the Christian ministry and church organization 
cannot be successfully accomplished by them under the jurisdiction 
of this General Conference as now constituted; and 

‘Whereas, in the event of a separation, a contingency to which 
the declaration asks attention as not improbable, we esteem it the 
duty of this General Conference to meet the emergency with 
Christian kindness and the strictest equity; therefore, 

“Resolved, by the delegates of the several annual conferences in 
General Conference assembled. 

‘1, That should the Annual Conferences in the slaveholding 
states find it necessary to unite in a distinct ecclesiastical con- 
nection, the folowing rule shall be observed with regard to the 
northern boundary of such connection:—Al] the societies, stations, 
and Conferences shall remain under the unmolested pastoral care 
of the Southern Church; and the ministers of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church shall in no wise attempt to organize churches or 
societies within the limits of the Church South; nor shall they 
attempt to exercise any pastoral oversight therein; it being 
understood that the ministry of the South reciprocally observe the 
same rule in relation to stations, societies, and Conferences, ad- 
hering, by a vote of a majority, to the Methodist HBpiscopal 
Church; provided also, that this rule shall apply only to societies, 
stations and Conferences bordering on the line of division, and not 
to interior charges, which shall in all cases be left to the care of 
that church within whose territory they are situated. 

“2. That ministers, local and travelling, of every grade and 
office in the Methodist Episcopal Church, may, as they prefer, 
remain in that church, or without blame, attach themselves to 
the Church South. 

“3. Resolved, by the delegates of all the Annual Conferences in 
General Conference assembled, That we recommend to all the 
Annual Conferences, at their first approaching sessions, to author- 
ize a change of the sixth restrictive article, so that the first 
clause shall read thus: ‘They shall not appropriate the produce 
of the Book Concern, nor of the Chartered Fund, to any other 
purpose other than for the benefit of the travelling, supernumerary, 


. guperannuated, worn-out preachers, their wives, widows, and 


children, and to such other purposes as may be determined by 
the votes of two-thirds of the members of the General Conference.’ 

“4. That whenever the Annual Conferences, by a vote of three- 
fourths of all their members voting on the third resolution, shall 
have concurred in the recommendation to alter the sixth restric- 
tive article, the Agents at New York and Cincinnati shall, and 
they are hereby authorized and directed to deliver over to any 
authorized agent or appointee of the Church South, should one’ 
be organized, all notes and book accounts against the ministers, 
church members, or citizens within its boundaries, with authority 
to collect the same for the sole use of the Southern Church; and 


146 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


said Agents shall also convey to the aforesaid agent or appointee 
of the South all the real estate, and assign to him all the property, 
including presses, stock, and all right and interest connected with 
the printing establishments at Charleston, Richmond, and Nash- 
ville, which now belong to the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

“5. That when the Annual Conferences shall have approved the 
aforesaid change in the sixth restrictive article, there shall be 
transferred to the above agents of the Southern Church so much 
of the capital and produce of the Methodist Book Concern as will, 
with the notes, book accounts, presses, etc., mentioned in the 
last resolution, bear the same proportion to the whole property of 
said Concern that the travelling ministers in the Southern Church 
shall bear to all the travelling ministers of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church; the division to be made on the basis of the number of 
travelling preachers in the forthcoming Minutes. 

“6. That the above transfer shall be in the form of annual 
payments of $25,000 per annum, and specifically in stock of the 
Book Concern, and in Southern notes and accounts due the estab- 
lishment, and accruing after+the first transfer mentioned above; 
and until the payments are made, the Southern Church shall share 
in al] the net profits of the Book Concern, in the proportion that 
the amount due them, or in arrears, bears to all the property of 
the Concern. : 

“7. That Nathan Bangs, George Peck, and James B. Finley be, 
and they are hereby appointed commissioners to act in concert 
with the same number of commissioners appointed by the South- 
ern organization, (should one be formed,) to estimate the amount 


‘which will fall due to the South by the preceding rule, and to have 


full power to. carry into effect the whole arrangements proposed 
with regard to the division of property, should the separation 
take place. And if by any means a vacancy occurs in this board 
of commissioners, the Book Committee at New York shall fill 
said vacancy. 

“8. That whenever any agents of the Southern Church are 
clothed with legal authority or corporate power to act in the 
premises, the Agents at New York are hereby authorized and 
directed to act in concert with said Southern agents, so as to 
give the provisions of these resolutions a legally binding force. 

“9. That all the property of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 
meeting-houses, parsonages, colleges, schools, Conference funds, 
cemeteries, and of every kind within the limits of the Southern 
organization, shall be for ever free from any claim set up on the 
part of the Methodist Episcopal Church, so far as this resolution 
can be of force in the premises. 

“10. That the church so formed in the south shall have a com- 
mon right to use all the copy-rights in possession of the Book 
Concerns at New York and Cincinnati, at the time of the settle- 
ment by the commissioners. 

“11. That the Book Agents at New York be directed to make 
such compensation to the Conferences, South, for their dividend 
from the Chartered Fund, as the commissioners above provided 
for shall agree upon. 

‘12. That the Bishops be respectfully requested to lay that part 
of this report requiring the action of the Annual Conferences, 
before them as soon as possible, beginning with the New York 
conference.’’ 


. Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, pp. 98-101. 
. Ibid., p. 102. 


. Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, p. 90. 
. Ibid., pp. 90-92. Cf. Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, 


pp. 129-34; and, History of the Organization of the M. E. Church, 
South, pp. 104-9. 


. Supra, p. 145. footnote 14; the first resolution. 
. Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, pp. 92-8. Papers of 


both sections printed these resolutions. For the Holston confer- 
ence, see South-western Christian Advocate, Volume I[X., No. 1; 


The Methodist Episcopal Church, South 147 


November 1, 1844. For the Virginia conference see Ibid., No. 6; 
December 6, 1844. For Tennessee conference, see Ibid., No. 2; 
November 8, 1844. For South Carolina conference see Shipp, His- 
tory of Methodism in South Carolina, pp. 496-7. For Kentucky 
conference see Redford, Life and Times of Bishop Kavanaugh, 
pp. 286-7. 

For resolutions of local meetings see the following: The Lib- 
erator, Volume XIV., p. 118, cols. 3-4; July 19, 1844 and Ibid., p. 
134, col. 2; August 23, 1844. Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, 
Volume XYV., p. 154, col. 4; September 25, 1844. Western Christian 
Advocate, Volume XI., p. 70, cols. 2 and 5; August 16, 1844—Ibid., 
p. 74, cols. 5-6; August 238, 1844 and Ibid., p. 78, cols. 4-5; August 
30, 1844. Southern Christian Advocate, Volume VIII., pp. 14-15, 
29, 31, 33; dates, July 5, August 2, August 2 and August 9, 1844, 
respectively. South-western Christian Advocate, Volume IX., No. 
7; December 13, 1844. Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume XII., 
pp. 95 to 141; August 15 to November 7, 1844. 


. History of the Organization of the M. E. Church, South, p, 169. 
. Ibid., pp. 170-71. 
. Ibid., p. 175. Cf. Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, 


pp. 99-100. 


. Marlay, Life of Bishop Morris, pp. 220-21. Morris wrote: “I> 


accomplished nothing, except, perhaps, to involve myself in sus- 
picion on the part of my brethren of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. Party prejudice proves often too strong for logic or 
facts. You may reason with a man’s judgment, but not with his 
passions, either in the North or the South.’’ 


mAbnids, py 213: 
. Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, p. 100. 
. History of the Organization of the M. E Church, South, pp. 186-7. 


Cf. Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, pp. 100-101, 
123-37. 


. Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, p. 101. 
MeL bids ps1 20: 

. Ibid., pp. 121-23. 

. Marlay, Life of Bishop Morris, p. 221. 


Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, p. 102. 


. Ridgeway, Life of Bishop Janes, pp. 99-100. The argument of 


Ridgeway is for the most part a defense of the southern Church. 
He seems to see in the documents nothing which is not present. 


. Elliott, The Great Secession, col, 545. 
. Ibid., cols. 546-7. 


CHAPTER) XII 


SOME DIFFERENCES OF OPINION 


The division of the Methodist Episcopal Church had been 
accomplished with a minimum of official friction. Leaders 
of both churches had studiously avoided inflammatory 
speeches, and had sought to secure the division of Methodism 
without disturbing the cordial relations which had been main- 
tained between the two sections of the Church for over half 
a century. Had it been a-question for officials of the two 
churches to decide and administer, it seems entirely probable 
that a peaceable settlement would have been reached upon 
every point upon which there was a difference of opinion. 

But evidence is not lacking that, while bishops and many 
ministers, both North and South, sanctioned a division of the 
Church as the best possible solution of an impassé, most 
ministers and people of both sections listened to appeals 
from those who voiced the opinions of their part of the 
country, or appealed to their prejudices rather than their 
reasons. One had only to mention Bishops Andrew and 
Soule, the Louisville Convention, or the General Conference 
of 1848, to precipitate a most exciting argument, which 
served only to increase ill-will | 

The southern view of the General Conference action in 
the case of Bishop Andrew was an unequivocable condemna- 
tion of the body which had deposed him. From the session 
of Kentucky conference in September, 1844, to that of 
Alabama conference the following Spring, the chorus of 
censure proved beyond cavil that the South was a unit in 
their attitude towards slavery and abolition. Mississippi 
conference approved the “conciliatory spirit” of the bishops 
who had attempted to compose the differences between the 
two sections ;? while Virginia conference declared that Bishop 
Andrew had “taken a noble stand upon the platform of 
constitutional law, in defense of the episcopal office and the 
tights of the South.’4 

It has been held by northern apologists that the people 
of the South were unduly influenced by their delegates to 


148 


Some Differences of Opinion 149 


the General Conference of 1844 and by their preachers in 
annual conferences which voted on the question of division. 
Without doubt, there is a measure of truth in the conten- 
tion —delegates and ministers could not have been worthy 
to represent their constituents if they had not been leaders. 
But it is important to remember that, before the decision 
on the anticipated division of the Church had been made by 
the General Conference of 1844, resolutions had been adopted 
by many communities in the South which indicated that, if 
separation did not take place because of Andrew, southern 
preachers would lose their congregations, In the Southern 
Christian Advocate, accounts of thirty meetings were found, 
many of them held before the decision of the General Con- 
ference was reached, and all of which condemned the Gen- 
eral Conference action and advocated the separation of the 
Church. The Richmond Christian Advocate also recorded 
resolutions of many: assemblies which met for the same 
purpose. Extracts from resolutions of two such meetings 
will indicate the character of all. One group in Alabama 
said the action relative to Bishop Andrew was “unconstitu- 
tional, inexpedient, revolutionary in its tendency.”? while 
another in Texas affirmed that he had been suspended “for 
no other cause than the gratification of the rabid appetite, the 
wild frenzy, and the infatuation of the prevailing epidemic 
of frantic abolitionism.”® 

In direct opposition to the opinions of southern ministers 
and people were those of northern conferences. New Eng- 
land conference commended their delegates for “resisting the 
encroachments of Slavery upon our episcopacy and other 
ministry” and expressed the hope that this new stand fore- 
told the time when the denomination would “be freed from 
all questionable connection with the ‘great evil’, and stand 
forth in its original purity in this respect.”® Maine con- 
ference approved the General Conference action relative to 
Harding and Andrew,?? while Ohio conference declared that 
delegates who supported the Finley resolution which virtually 
deposed Bishop Andrew were deserving of the highest praise. 
The action of southern conferences and societies relative to 
- Bishop Andrew was reviewed, and the people of the North 
urged to be patient in their dealings with the South. As 
for the separation of the southern conferences from the 


150 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


Methodist Episcopal Church, that was considered “a conse- 
quence for which they alone” were “responsible.’’™ 


The second event which was capitalized by the North in 
the attack upon the South was the invitation sent to Bishop 
Andrew by Bishop Soule. September 26, 1844, Soule wrote 
Andrew, inviting him to join him at Virginia conference, and 
also visit other southern conferences which had been assigned 
to Soule. In this letter he shows that he is in sympathy with 
the South on the slavery question, for he commended the 
General Conference action of 1836, by which both ministers 
and laymen were advised to refrain from discussing the 
slavery issue. November 4, 1844, Bishop Andrew replied. 
He cited the fact that the General Conference had indicated 
that he should not continue his work as bishop until he freed 
himself from slavery, and that the “plan of episcopal visita- 
tion was later drawn up and published without his name 
being subscribed thereto.” He concluded that the other 
bishops considered it most prudent not to invite him to pre- 
side at any of the conferences and, not desiring to cause any 
unpleasantness, he had decided to absent himself from all 
such meetings. At the urgent request of many ministers 
of Kentucky conference, he agreed to attend the session of 
‘ that body but was unable to reach the seat of the conference 
in time. Subsequent to that failure, he decided to return 
to his original purpose and refrained from attending 
Missouri and Holston conferences. It was his earnest desire 
that southern conferences should act on the question of 
division without being influenced by his presence, and he there- 
fore determined to spend his time in slaveholding states in 
evangelistic endeavor. However, the letter of Bishop Soule 
induced him to change his mind, and he agreed to visit 
southern conferences in company with the former.” 

The agreement between the two bishops was bitterly con- 
demned by northern Methodist papers, especially the Western 
Christian Advocate and the Christian Advocate and Journal. 
It was contended that the bishops had acted contrary to the 
decision of the General Conference of 1844.% This was 
undoubtedly true, for the action of that Conference relative 
to Andrew was mandatory and not advisory. But, on the 
other hand, it may be said that Andrew decided to visit 
Kentucky conference only after he had been invited to do 
so, and that he did not actually meet with any group of 


Some Differences of Opinion 151 


ministers except in states where the result was unquestioned. 
The infraction of the “Plan of Separation” was therefore 
a sin against the letter of the law rather than its spirit. 

The debate over Andrew soon degenerated into a wordy 
and acrimonious war between editors of the church papers. 
One southern paper accused Dr. Bond of seeking to stir up 
dissension in the Methodist Church,14 while another called 
him the New York “dictator.’”?> That ultra-abolitionists 
of the North considered that the New York editor was re- 
ceiving condign punishment for his former compromising 
attitude towards slavery is apparent from Garrison’s state- 
ment: “We are glad to see Dr. Bond getting his just deserts. 
He has long licked up the spittle of slavery with abject 
servility of spirit, and is now discarded with contempt by his. 
old employers as no longer to be trusted.”?6 

Dr. Elliott was also condemned for his attitude towards 
the separation of the Church. One writer referred to him 
as “our Cincinnati Cardinal.”47_ And a contributor to another 
southern paper suggested a solution for the wavering of 
Elliott on the attitude his Church should assume towards the 
new Church. He declared that the vacillation of Elliott 
was due to the precarious situation of the Western Book 
Concern, should the southern conferences form a separate 
organization. For, if Elliott should declare for the South, 
the North would forsake him; if he went with the West, then 
he would be spurned by both North and South; and in any 
event, the Book Concern would lose the patronage of many 
Methodists of the middle states. Finally he affirmed that 
Elliott was losing his mind.” 

The bitterness between leaders of the South and those of 
the North was further kindled by the Louisville Convention 
of 1845. Naturally, southern delegates and their supporters 
were entirely satisfied with the work of the Convention. 
They were also fully convinced that they had scrupulously 
observed the terms and spirit of the Plan of Separation. 
Only one event marred the good feeling of delegates towards 
the North. Dr. Elliott attempted to interfere in the delibera- 
tions of that body and consequently the wrath of the south- 
erners descended upon him.!® 

On the other hand, the action of the Louisville Convention 
and the part which Soule had taken therein were condemned 
by many in the North. Bond contended that, since Soule 


152 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


presided over the southern Convention and showed himself 
in perfect accord with the plans and purposes of southerners, 
he had withdrawn from the Methodist Episcopal Church.”° 
Representatives of many northern conferences asserted that 
they would not receive Soule as their presiding officer.?} 
One of these spokesmen for the North was Peter Cartwright. 
He asserted that, while his conference would receive Soule as 
a man and a Christian minister, they would not welcome him 
as a bishop. Relative to the action of the Louisville Con- 
vention, Cartwright wrote: “Goodby, my dear sirs, and may 
joy go with you, till you shall have reaped all the blessings of 
‘dividing’ the Methodist Episcopal Church, which, indeed, is 
not a ‘division’ but an APOSTACY FROM THE GOOD 
AND RIGHT WAY OF OLD METHODISM. The mem- 
bers of this convention went home shouting, ‘Victory’ and 
crying, they were a ‘co-ordinate branch of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church,’ and if they were not this, they were ‘the 
Methodist Episcopal Church proper.’ But, my dear sirs, 
you will have to christen the brat again.”?? 


The bitter feeling between the two sections was accent- 
uated by the action of the General Conference of 1848 on 
several questions which came before that body. May 10, 
Bishop Soule addressed a letter to the Conference, in which 
he complained of treatment accorded him by Dr. Elliott. The 
latter had written in the Western Christian Advocate that 
the bishop had withdrawn from the Methodist Episcopal 
Church “under grave charges, or liable to them.” Elliott 
asserted that these charges “were officially laid in against 
him previous to the (Louisville) Convention.”** Soule 
called on Elliott in the presence of four ministers and asked 
who had preferred the charges and who gave the informa- 
tion against him. Elliott replied that it was James B. Finley 
and that Finley had furnished Soule with a copy of the 
charges. This Soule denied and asked Elliott to retract his 
statements but the latter refused to do so. Soule requested 
a copy of the “grave charges”, but failed at this point, also. 
Soule declared that he had never discovered the nature of 
the alleged charges. He therefore came to the General Con- 
ference to answer any indictment that might be preferred 
against him.*4 But the General Conference refused to accept 
the challenge and simply passed a resolution in which they 
asserted that they had “no jurisdiction over the Rev. Bishop 


Some Differences of Opinion 153. 


Soule” and therefore could “exercise no ecclesiastical au- 
thority over him.’ 


One of the important events of this General Conference 
was the action taken relative to the proposal of the Church, 
South, to establish fraternal relations with the northern 
Church. Dr. Lovick Pierce, the official delegate of the 
former Church, presented his credentials to the General 
Conference and asked the wishes of that body. The Con- 
ference replied that, while they would be pleased to receive 
him as an individual, they could not receive him as a fraternal 
delegate, lest they should be understood to approve what the 
southern Church had done.” But Pierce refused to attend 
the Conference sessions except as the official delegate of the 
Church, South, and sent his final message in which he said 
the southern Church could never renew the offer of fraterni- 
zation. The olive branch was extended, however, when he 
said that the northern Church might secure the restoration 
of fraternal relations at any time it desired, if it were done 
on the basis of the Plan of Separation.*” After the rejection 
of Pierce, no southern minister crossed the bar of the Con- 
ference.?8 


The resolution, rejecting Pierce, was of New England 
origin, and the West supported the radical section.?? Gilbert 
Haven later declared that the southern Church was not 
recognized as a Christian Church “simply because of its 
submission to the Slave Power.’%° The attitude of the 
North was probably identical with that of Cartwright who, 
while paying a high compliment to Pierce as a man and a 
“Christian gentleman,” also declared that the northern Church 
had been “‘caricatured, abused, slandered, and in every sense 
maltreated by the South” to such an extent that northerners. 
could not be expected to vote in favor of fraternization. If 
the South would duly repent “and bind themselves to a 
Christian course in future,” the northern Church would 
entertain the suggestion for fraternization.*+ 


But if Cartwright considered that the Church, South, 
should repent in sackcloth and ashes, southerners maintained 
the same attitude towards the North. Over three years be- 
fore, Kentucky conference had declared that if the “northern 
brethren” would “make suitable reparation for the past and 
afford satisfactory security for the future” then they would 
be glad to “hail them as brethren beloved, with whom we hold 


154 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


it a privilege to live and die.”82 And the conviction of the 
South that the northern Church needed to repent was not 
weakened, but rather strengthened by events in the General 
Conference of 1848. After the rejection of Pierce, the editor 
of the Richmond Christian Advocate wrote that “the grave of 
the Plan of Separation and of the Property Question was 
dug when the body refused fraternal intercourse.’** 
Having dug the grave of the Plan of Separation, the 
General Conference proceeded to the burial. In 1844, the 
General Conference provided for a peaceable division of 
the Church; in 1848, the action of the previous Conference 
was reversed. The Committee on the State of the Church, 
of which George Peck was chairman, presented a report in 
which they attempted to prove that the Church, South, had 
broken its agreement and that consequently the Plan of 
Separation was no longer binding upon the northern Church. 
They asserted that the southern Church existed as a separate 
body solely by its own acts. They cited the fact that fifty- 
one members of the General Conference of 1844 had met 
in New York without any authority from the General Con- 
ference, and they also asserted that southern conferences 
had voted to hold the Louisville Convention without any 
sanction from the Methodist Episcopal Church. They added 
that Bishop Soule had invited Bishop Andrew to meet south- 
ern conferences — a proceeding which was declared to be con- 
trary to the “Plan”. In the second place, the committee 
contended that southerners had not shown the necessity of a 
division of the Church, and that three-fourths of the mem- 
bers of the conferences had not voted in favor of a division of 
the Church funds. Further, they asserted that the southern 
Church had violated the territory of the northern Church 
and that southern leaders had given an interpretation of the 
Plan of Separation which was unwarranted by the document 
itself. Finally, since the southern Church had violated the 
Plan of Separation, those who had withdrawn from the 
Methodist Episcopal Church were considered secessionists, 
and the whole Plan declared null and void.*4 When the 
vote on the resolutions was taken, the report of the com- 
mittee was overwhelmingly adopted.*> Concerning this action, 
the attitude of the South was undoubtedly similar to that of 
Lee who wrote: ‘““We had no tears to shed. The abuse of the 


Some Differences of Opinion 155 


day before (relative to the rejection of Pierce) had dried up 
our sympathies.’’6 


Concerning the topics treated in the present chapter, several 
conclusions seem to be warranted. As might be expected, 
the two sections were diametrically opposed to each other 
on the action of the General Conference of 1844 relative 
to Bishop Andrew. Concerning the invitation of Bishop 
Soule to Bishop Andrew to accompany him on his visits to 
southern conferences, one is forced to the opinion, after a 
careful reading of both letters, that northern editors were 
looking for an opportunity to attack the southern Church 
and its leaders, rather than to put the best interpretation 
upon the correspondence. And when one reads the tirade 
of Cartwright on the Louisville Convention, he seeks in vain 
the motive for so brutal an onslaught. The same is true 
in relation to the General Conference of 1848, when the 
action of the previous Conference on the plan of separation 
was completely nullified. In all these controversies, due 
allowance must be made for the truth and for honest inten- 
tions. But, as will appear more clearly in succeeding chapters, 
one of the chief motives for the northern action was the 
retention of northern radicals, and especially New England 
conferences, within the Methodist Episcopal Church. 


1. These topics will be considered in the present chapter, while other 
problems, concerning which the discussion was still more acri- 
monious, will be reserved for succeeding chapters. 


2. Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, pp. 92-120. 

3. Ibid., pp. 108-9. 

4. Ibid., pp. 110-11. 

5. Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, pp. 129-34. 

6. Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume XII., pp. 95-141, passim. 

7. Western Christian Advocate, Volume XI., p. 70, col. 2; August 16, 
1844. 

8. South-Western Christian Advocate, Volume IX., No. 7; December 
13, 1844, 

9. Minutes of the New England Conference, 1845, pp. 12-13. 

10. Minutes of the Maine Conference, 1844, pp. 12-13. 

11. Western Christian Advocate, Volume XI., p. 94, col. 5; September 


27, 1844. Cf. South-Western Christian Advocate, Volume IX.,, 
No. 1; November 1, 1844. Elliott was a member of this confer- 
ence. 

12. Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, pp. 137-9. 

13. Elliott, The Great Secession, cols. 159-68, 390-400. 

14. South-Western Christian Advocate, Volume IX., No. 10; January 
3, 18465. 


15. Southern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., p. 182, col. 5; April 24, 
1846, 


16. The Liberator, Volume XIV., p. 134, col.2; August 23, 1844. 
17. Southern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., p. 182, col. 5; April 24, 
1846, 


18. 


19. 
‘20. 
21. 


2a 


23. 
24. 
25. 


26. 
27. 


‘28. 
29. 


30. 
31. 


156 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


South-Western Christian Advocate, Volume IX., No. 14; January 
31, 1845. This feeling against Elliott was general in the South. 
Lee, editor of the Richmond Christian Advocate, made the fol- 
lowing suggestions when, in 1848, Elliott was authorized by the 
General Conference to write a history of the relation of Methodism 
to slavery: 

“While collecting materials for the work, it is indispensable that 
the author’s resentments be confined to a straightjacket. 

“In arranging the plan of the work, and assorting the materials, 
it is absolutely essential to keep the conscience well covered with a good 
blister plaster, powdered with tartar emetic. 

“In the preparation of the work it will be necessary to administer 
cooling and composing draughts from the fountains of truth, justice, and mercy 
to the imagination of the author.”” (Richmond Christian Advocate, Vol- 
ume II. (New Series), p. 110, col. 5; July 13, 1848) 

History of the Organization of the M. E. Church, South, p. 182. 
Elliott said the laymen of Louisville were favorable to the North. 
Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume XIX., p. 194, cols, 2-4; 
July 16, 1845. 

For statements of leaders in Iowa, Illinois, Rock River and Ohio 
conferences see, Elliott, The Great Secession, cols. 491-4; Western 
Christian Advocate, Volume XII, p. 86, cols. 3-4; September 12, 
1845 and Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume XIII. p. 118, cols. 
1-4; September 25, 1845. Ohio conference, in 1845, actually refused 
to permit Soule to preside. Bishop Hamline extended the invitation 
but the conference voted, 145 to 7, to eject him from the chair. 
(History of the Organization of the Methodist Episcopal. Church, 
South, pp. 240-41). 

Western Christian Advocate, Volume XII., p. 46, col. 4; July 4, 
1845. Cf. Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume II., (New Series), 
p. 62, cols. 1-2; April 20, 1848. 

Western Christian Advocate, Volume XIII, p. 34, col. 6; June 
12, 1846. 

Journal of General Conference, 1848, pp. 135-6. 

Ibid., p. 47. 

Ibid., p. 21. Cf. Ridgeway, Life of Bishop Janes, p. 112. 

Journal of the General Conference of the M. E. Church, South, 
1850, p. 190. The concluding paragraph of Pierce’s message reads: 

“You will therefore regard this communication as final on the 
part of the M. E. Church, South. She can never renew the offer 
of fraternal relations between the two great bodies of Wesleyan 
Methodists in the United States. But the proposition can be re-. 
newed at any time, either now, or hereafter, by the M. EH. Church. 
And if made upon the basis of the Plan of Separation, as adopted 
by the General Conference of 1844, the Church, South, will cordially 
entertain the proposition.’”’ The position of Dr. Pierce was made. 
the rule of the Church, South, by a resolution presented by him- 
self to the General Conference of 1850 of that Church. (ibid., 
pp. 188-95). 

Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume II (New Series), p. 82, col. 
1; May 25, 1848. 

Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XIX., p. 79, col. 2; 
May 17, 1848. Cf. Western Christian Advocate, Volume XV., p. 
90, col. 5; September 18, 1848. A correspondent said in regard to 
New England conference that they supported the General Con- 
ference on the fraternization question. ‘‘In reference to it they 
say good, good, GOOD! And by the way, they like to think that 
it refused fraternal relations with the Church, South, in conse- 
quence of the position which that body sustained to slavery. And 
this is unquestionably the fact in the case.’’ 

The Liberator, Volume XXXI., p. 52, col. 4; March 29,. 1861. 
Cartwright, Autobiography, p. 453. Cartwright’s statement is as 
follows: ‘“‘A better man and a better Christian gentleman the 
whole south did not afford than Dr. Pierce, their messenger on 


32. 


33. 


34, 


35. 
36. 


Some Differences of Opinion 157 


this embassy; but the Methodist Episcopal Church was caricatured, 
abused, slandered, and in every sense maltreated by the South; 
and while they were wounded and bleeding at every pore, is it to 
be wondered at that this embassy failed, and that every single 
member of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church of 1848 voted against fraternization? If they would undo 
the wrongs they had inflicted, and take back their hard speeches, 
and bind themselves to a Christian course in future, then, and not 
till then, could the Methodist Episcopal Church think of a Christian 
fraternization.’’ : 

It is to be noted that nothing is said here about slavery. 

Western Christian Advocate, Volume XI., p. 116, col. 6; November 
8, 1844. The statement reads: ‘“‘Now if our northern brethren 
will make suitable reparation for the past and afford satisfactory 
security for the future as expressed in our fifth conference reso- 
lution, then will we gladly hail them as brethren beloved, with 
whom we hold it a privilege to live and die; but short of this, 
the union as it now is could only be a bond of discord.”’ 
Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume II (New Series), p. 82, col. 
1; May 25, 1848. In the Pastoral Address of the General Confer- 
ence of 1848, they said in regard to slavery and the relation be- 
tween the two churches: ‘In the disposition of this subject, we 
can assure you that we have exercised all the wisdom and dis- 
cretion that heaven had conferred upon us.’”’ (Journals of General 
Conference, 1848, p. 175). 

It must be admitted that little of either wisdom or discretion 
seems to have been conferred upon these delegates. 

Journal of General Conference, 1848, pp. 154-64. Cf. Crooks, The 
Life of Matthew Simpson, p. 247. Crooks says that Simpson was 
chiefly responsible for the report which was adopted. 

Journal of General Conference, 1848, pp. 80-85. Cf. Ridgeway, The 
Life of Bishop Janes, p. 111. 

Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume II (New Series), p. 90, col. 
2; June 8, 1848. 


CHAPTER XIII , 


THE BORDER WARFARE 


By the provisions of the ‘““Plan of Separation” the process, 
by which adherence of Methodists to either the northern or 
southern church was determined, was a simple one. In each 
case, the majority of “societies, stations, and Conferences” 
was to determine the membership of all. That is, no new 
conference or local church organization was to be formed 
by a minority, whether such minority favored the South or 
the North. On the basis of this agreement, ministers were 
permitted to associate themselves with either church “without 
blame.” Such was the decision of the General Conference of 
1844, which expressed the desire “to meet the emergency with. 
Christian kindness and the strictest equity.’ 

The General Conference action on the division of Method- 
ism into two independent bodies stirred both Church and 
Nation profoundly. Yet some leaders of both organizations. 
stood staunchly by the letter and spirit of the Plan of Separa- 
tion. Elliott, editor of the Western Christian Advocate and 
later one of the most virulent traducers of the South, made 
an elaborate defense of the General Conference. Even the 
establishment of a fixed line between, the two churches was 
justified because it was not only fair but similar to the ar- 
rangement between the Methodist churches of Canada and 
the United States. Elliott pointed out that many in the 
North were insinuating that southern Methodists were schis- 
matics and seceders. This position, said he, could be due 
only to a determination not to abide by the General Con- 
ference decision. Such a repudiation was repugnant to 
Elliott, who declared in favor of two “independent, yet 
connected bodies.” His conclusion was reached, not because 
he desired separation, but because he considered that it might 
be best, and further because he believed such a result un- 
avoidable. He favored a peaceable division rather than war 
between southern and northern Methodists.” 

The justness and fairness manifested by Elliott in this 
editorial on the border question was heartily reciprocated. 


158 


The Border Warfare 159 


by southern leaders. In the “Pastoral Address’ of the 
Louisville Convention, the desirability of peace was strongly 
emphasized. It was stated that the intense feeling aroused as 
a result of divergent opinions concerning Bishop Andrew and 
slavery had caused some to make statements which tended 
towards war rather than peace. But the Convention declared 
that there should be no commendation for any southern 
Methodist who did not seek to compose the difficulties which 
existed between the two sections of Methodism. Especially 
were southern Methodists in border territory urged to keep 
the peace in settling the problems peculiar to their section.? 


That leaders of the northern Church also desired that the 
line of separation should be determined without bitterness 
and friction seems apparent from the action of the bishops 
at New York in July, 1845.4 In their opinion, societies 
voting on the question of adherence should have sufficient 
notice of the meeting held for that purpose and proper 
officers elected to forward the results to the majority’s church 
officials. 


Bishop Soule acted in strict conformity with the will of 
the Louisville Convention and the letter and spirit of the 
resolution passed by the northern bishops. Realizing that 
the only way to determine the adherence of border Methodists 
was to hold meetings for that purpose in conferences and 
societies, he called upon border churches in the southern 
parts of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Iowa to cast their votes 
for either the North or the South.® Inasmuch as conferences 
south of the Ohio River had voted overwhelmingly in favor 
of the southern Church, it does not appear that Soule, though 
undoubtedly favorable to the South, was attempting to secure 
members by questionable methods. That this is the correct 
view of his action seems apparent from the letter which he 
wrote concerning the whole border situation. He denied 
with considerable emphasis the charge that he would use 
his influence in northern conferences in the interests of the 
southern Church and again stated his position in favor of per- 
fect freedom of all Methodists to decide with which church 
they would associate themselves.® 

The interpretation of Bishop Soule relative to border so- 
cieties was immediately challenged by Elliott. The latter de- 
clared that, before a conference could separate from the 
Methodist Episcopal Church under the Plan, a majority of 


r 


160 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


all members must vote affirmatively and then a majority of the 
preachers of the conference must approve. “These two must 
unite. No one of them, without the other, can do the deed. 
And unless this double decision is to be had, the provisions 
of the plan cannot be available to them.’” 

That Elliott’s interpretation was not in accord with that 
of northern bishops is evident from a letter written by 
Bishop Morris, September 8, 1845. He had been asked to 
meet with Missouri conference, apparently for the purpose 
of influencing a majority in favor of his Church. But he 
replied that he should be at Indiana conference at that time 
and therefore could not come. Believing it best to state his 
opinion of the border situation, Morris expressed his dis- 
approval of the presence of two Missouri conferences, each 
claiming to be the true one, and said the majority should 
decide which Church should receive the property of the 
Book Concern. Any minister or layman who did not desire 
to belong to the Church of the majority had the privilege of 
uniting with some neighboring conference of the Church 
of his choice. The work of editors who sought to create 
difficulty on the border was severely condemned. “If the 
Plan of Separation had been carried out in good faith and 
Christian feeling on both sides, it would scarcely have been 
felt any more than the division of an annual conference.’ 


Two more important documents bear upon the question 
under consideration. The first is the official interpretation 
of the Plan of Separation by the General Conference of 
the southern Church in 1846, so far as it related to the border 
societies. It was agreed that, whenever the line of separation 
had been determined by stations adhering to the northern 
Church, no southern minister should be appointed to a charge 
north of that line. On two points they were particularly 
emphatic. They contended that the dividing line was not 
determined by the action of the first societies that voted, but 
that the question of adherence was simply transferred to 
the next tier of societies on the north. They admitted that 
the principle was equally applicable when the boundary line 
was being moved southward. Further, the southern Church 
held that circuits, composed of more than one society, should 
vote as circuits, and that societies of such a circuit which 
were not on the dividing line should be considered as integral 
parts of the circuit and not as interior charges.® 


The Border Warfare 161 


It is significant that this interpretation was not challenged 
by northern Methodist officials until the following year. 
March 3 and 4, 1847, the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church met at Philadelphia and set forth their interpretation 
of the Plan in relation to border societies and members. 
They accepted the line of division as final and declared that 
they would send no minister south of the line of separation. 
But they opposed voting: on adherence by circuits, and con- 
ferences and societies were limited as to the time when their 
adherence should be fully determined.1° Further, the first 
vote taken on the question of church membership was to be 
considered final.1 

While there were differences of opinion between leaders 
of the two sections relative to the construction to be placed 
on the Plan of Separation — especially in regard to the voting 
of circuits — yet the purpose, for the most part, seems to 
have been to settle the whole border question fairly and 
peaceably. But the General Conference had made one im- 
portant omission in the plan for the division of the Church. 
For, according to the Plan, no provision was made for minor- 
ities. Naturally, when a minority was composed of members 
who deliberately opposed the majority, they could be relied 
upon to refuse to fellowship with the dominant group. While 
some conflicts occurred in southern conferences, most of 
them were in slaveholding sections of northern conferences. 
Consequently, both churches, and especially the northern, 
were wrought up to the highest pitch of excitement. 


Northern conferences at the eastern end of the line of 
division which were affected by border controversies were 
Baltimore, Philadelphia and Ohio. These conferences had 
territory located in slaveholding Virginia and Maryland, and 
difficulty was inevitable. Baltimore conference had voted 
unanimously to remain in the northern Church. But, 
because it was located in states which supported many slaves, 
the brunt of the border warfare seems to have fallen upon it. 
Some stations voted to go with the Church, South, and the 
minorities refused to transfer their allegiance. The organiza- 
tion of two churches in the same community caused endless 
controversy.13 An attempt was made to draw off, not only 
Baltimore conference entire and unite it with the southern 
Church,/* but also the Virginia section of Philadelphia con- 
ference. Baltimore conference in 1848 considered the whole 


162 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


question of division and adherence, especially as it was related 
to themselves. They declared that the line of division was 
“immovably fixed upon the northern boundary of the thirteen 
protesting Conferences” when the southern Church was 
formed; “and that therefore charges that were ‘interior’ 
then, remain so thereafter.” Certain charges were pronounced 
‘interior’, and the conference decided to resist any attempt 
to consider them part of the southern Church. Ministers of 
Virginia conference who were responsible for “aggressions” 
‘against the Virginia section of Baltimore conference were 
condemned because their action was considered “in violation 
of the provisions of the Plan of Separation and derogatory 
to the friendly relations that should always exist between 
different denominations of Christians.’’® 


One of the chief points of controversy in this conference 
was at Alexandria, Virginia. Lee, editor of the Richmond 
Christian Advocate, was accused of visiting Alexandria in 
the interests of the southern Church. Whether or not that 
be true, the fact that a division had taken place at that point 
was published in the Baltimore Sun. When officers of the 
Church, South, took possession of the church building, ad- 
herents of the northern Church protested,!* and the case was 
carried to the courts, where Judge Tyler decided in favor 
of the northern Methodists. A new board of trustees was 
selected from these but a legacy of hatred remained as a 
result of the controversy.!® 


Ohio conference included the northwestern part of Vir- 
ginia. For the most part, the stations seem to have voted 
to remain with the northern Church, but Parkersburg refused 
to receive the minister sent them because he came from Ohio. 
He was threatened and “advised” to leave the state, but finally 
returned and continued to serve those who refused to join 
the southern Church. Parkersburg, according to the northern 
interpretation, was not a border station and it was therefore 
believed to be a part of the northern territory.!® Not only 
was Parkersburg occupied but it was also charged that the 
whole Kanawha District, in which it was located, had been 
overrun by ministers sent out by Kentucky conference of the 
Church, South. The latter succeeded in organizing many 
societies for their Church, in communities where a northern 
church already existed.?® 


Probably that which caused the greatest excitement in 


The Border Warfare 163 


Ohio was the attempt of the southern Church to gain control 
of certain churches and sections of Cincinnati. The formerly 
deserted Vine St. Methodist Church became “Soule 
Chapel,’”° with about sixty-five members, most of whom 
had withdrawn from Methodist churches in Cincinnati.?} 
Andrew Chapel was also built to accommodate another 
congregation of southern sympathizers. The objection of 
northern bishops to the occupancy of these two churches 
by ministers and members of the Church, South, was based | 
on the contention that in each instance, there was a northern 
charge between the southern church and the Ohio River. 
Therefore, since this territory was ‘interior’ — as much so 
as if “it were in Columbus or Cleveland” — northern bishops 
held that the southern Church had violated the Plan of 
Separation.2* So intense was the feeling of northern Meth- 
odists in Cincinnati against those of the southern Church 
that preachers refused to invite southerners to preach in 
their pulpits—a proceeding which one writer said “must 
be regarded as an act of unbrotherly hate, of which no 
Christian should be guilty.’ 

One of the most interesting and typical of these border 
conflicts was the famous “Maysville Case.” There had been 
a division of the Methodist church at Maysville, Kentucky, 
following the General Conference of 1844. The Church, 
South, members claimed that they were in the majority and 
that the church property should be used exclusively by 
themselves. But a minority member, John Armstrong, who 
had contributed liberally when the building was erected, 
protested against the use of the church property by adherents 
of the southern Church, on the ground that the General Con- 
ference was incompetent to divide the Church. Each group 
claimed the exclusive use of the property. There was imme- 
diate difficulty when services by’ two different and conflicting 
organizations were announced for the same hour and day. 
To prevent strife, Armstrong had the building closed, but 
southern Church members undid his work and held a serv- 
ice.2* Neither party was willing to withdraw in favor of 
the other, so resort was had to the courts. The first trial 
started September 30, 1845.7° The decision of the judge 
was a compromise. Each group was permitted to use the 
building a proportionate share of the time, and since the 
number of members in each organization was almost the 


164 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


same, he decided that each group should occupy the church 
on alternate Sundays.”® 

This decision was unsatisfactory to both groups and the 
case was carried to the Kentucky Court of Appeals, of 
which Judge Marshall was chief justice. The chief conten- 
tion of the northern faction was that trustees, members and 
preachers were required to belong to the “Methodist Episco- 
pal Church” and “use the property under the rules and 
Discipline of the same Church.” Whenever any one ceased 
to be a member of that Church, he ceased to have any 
claim upon the property of the same. Southerners claimed 
that each part of the Church was a Methodist Episcopal 
Church, and that the General Conference was fully compe- 
tent to divide the Church into two separate organizations. 
They claimed that, according to the Plan of Separation, they 
had control of all church property in southern territory, and 
that that property was to be held by trustees for the benefit 
of southern members. But they held also that “the Church, 
in point of general jurisdiction” existed “no longer as a 
whole, though one in doctrine, faith, and Discipline.”’?? 
Chief Justice Marshall decided that the Church undoubtedly 
had the right to divide, and that the General Conference 
was as competent in this instance as when Canadian Meth- 
odists separated from the Methodist Episcopal Church in the 
United States.28 The decision was therefore in favor of the 
Church, South, and all similar cases in Kentucky would have 
a like result.?9 

In Missouri conference the conflict was equally bitter. One 
southern paper urged the ministers to remain with the 
South,®° and there may have been some need for exhortation. 
When the ministers met, a northern party seemed determined 
to hold a small number of northern members together for 
the purpose of keeping the Missouri conference share of the 
Book Concern dividends for the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
Bishop Morris had been invited to meet with them for the 
purpose of accomplishing this result but had refused to 
sanction their plans.*4. When the votes on adherence were 
counted, there were only fourteen against the southern 
Church.*? 

St. Louis was thé center of the many local struggles in 
Missouri. June 10, 1845, seventeen members declared that 
they would refuse to identify themselves with the southern 


The Border Warfare 165 


Church. The editor of the Christian Advocate and Journal 
commended their action, saying: “Our brethren who remain 
in the Methodist Episcopal Church in St. Louis will be 
fostered and supplied by the Church. Let them be firm and 
immovable, and God will provide for them and all such.’ 
But the northern society, under the leadership of the Rev. 
John Anderson, failed to thrive.*+ Probably for the purpose 
of furthering the interests of the northern Church, Elliott 
went to St. Louis. One leader gave it as his opinion that 
“there might be some tarring and feathering in restoring 
again Methodism in the South,” but northern preachers were 
held responsible for such proceedings.2® From this time 
forward, northerners were accused of sending “missionaries” 
who insisted on worming their way into southern territory 
in Missouri.*® 

The General Conference of 1848 was called upon to aid 
the northern minorities of two St. Louis churches. The 
congregation of Wesley Chapel asked for aid because they 
had been deprived of their building by southerners. In 
answer, the Conference extended sympathy but declared that 
they had “no power to draw on the funds of the Book 
Concern to indemnify them for their losses.” They urged 
that all such claims be presented when the final adjustment 
was made with the Church, South.?* 

A second case which came before the General Conference 
involved the administration of Bishop Morris. Ebenezer 
church in St. Louis asserted that Bishop Morris had actually 
supported the southern Church and that a letter from. him 
to Joseph Boyle, pastor of Centenary church in the same 
city, had been used to influence the vote of church members 
in favor of the southern Church.28 The biographer of 
Bishop Morris declares that under the Plan of Separation 
the bishop had no right to appoint a minister to a congrega- 
tion, when a majority had decided to adhere to the southern 
Church. He affirms that the only question involved in the 
case was whether or not Morris had actually written the 
letter to Boyle. This was soon disposed of by the latter 
who said he had never received such a communication.®? 
The General Conference therefore decided that there was “no 
cause of complaint against the administration of Bishop 
Morris in that matter.’’*° 


166 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


Even the Wyandott Indians of Kansas were not free 
from dissensions as a result of the division of the Methodist 
Church. The General Conference of 1848 received a petition 
from some of the Indians, asking that they be permitted to 
remain in the northern Church,*! and that they be re-imbursed 
to the amount of five hundred dollars, which had been used 
to erect a new church building. The Conference recom- 
mended that the Missionary Society pay this amount “pro- 
vided the Methodists, in’ the above tribe of Indians, are 
recognized as belonging to the M. E. Church.’ 

The petition of these Indians seems to indicate that already 
there had been an attempt to divide the Church. But it 
was not until September 1 of that year that the vote was 
taken and the decision rendered to adhere to the Church, 
South. An appeal was taken from this decision to Ohio 
conference by those who favored the northern Church.*? 
October 22, Governor Walker recorded that a preacher had 
been appointed by Ohio conference to come to Kansas “and 
sneak about like a night burglar or incendiary to. do harm 
and not good. What is it that religious fanaticism will not 
do? The seceders have stolen the church records.” A 
week later, Mr. Still, the presiding elder of the northern . 
Church was present and the question of division was again 
voted upon.** Again the southern Church was successful. 
October 30, adherents of the southern Church met and 
prepared a letter to the Indian Agent, in which they asked 
him to “keep out of our territory those reverend disturbers of 
the Nation.” This exhibition of unbrotherly relations dis- 
gusted the non-Christian Indians who held a meeting, January 
30, 1849 and decided that missionaries of both churches 
should be expelled. But Walker again defined the position 
of the southern Church and closed the meeting.*® 

The General Conference of 1848 was especially noted for 
the repudiation of the Plan of Separation. And that this 
action, by which the proceedings of the General Conference 
of 1844 were declared null and void, was in large measure 
the result of the border warfare, there is no doubt. For, 
after having declared that there was no power in the General 
Conference “to pass any act which, either directly or in- 
directly, effectuates, authorizes, or sanctions, a division of 
said Church,” they affirmed that no member of the Church 
could be deprived of the right to remain a member “unless 


The Border Warfare 167 


guilty of a violation of its rules.” This right was safeguarded 
by the Discipline itself, which guaranteed all members and 
ministers the right of appeal, so that if a member were 
separated from the Church by any other method, it was 
contrary to “the constitutional rights and privileges of the 
membership and ministry.”4° Having thus acted on the 
pronouncement of the previous General Conference, they 
decided to recognize all as belonging to the northern Church, 
who were members in 1844 and did not desire to join the 
southern Church. They regarded it as their “duty, as far 
as practicable, to supply all such with the preaching and 
ordinances of the Gospel.’’4* 

The division of border societies had been accomplished 
only after the most bitter controversies. For, while leaders 
on both sides desired an equitable adjustment of border 
difficulties during the first year after the division of the 
Church was provided for,*® it was impossible to avoid strife 
in local churches. By 1848, even northern bishops were 
willing to present to the General Conference a list of infrac- 
tions of the Plan of Separation by the southern Church. 
The General Conference proceeded to repudiate what the 
Conference of 1844 had done. Not only that, but they 
determined to protect those members who desired to remain 
under their jurisdiction, even though they might be in the 
. territory of the Church South. That is, the door was opened 
even wider for controversy and hatred and persecution. So 
far as can be determined, there were only 2,735 Methodists 
in southern territory who were dissatisfied with the arrange- 
ments made in 1844. It is one of the ironies of history 
that the Church which, in 1848, was so emphatic in its de- 
cision to protect the rights of minorities, was equally deter- 
mined in 1861 that the southern minority, of which southern 
Methodists formed a considerable part, should not have the 
privilege of self-determination. 


1. Supra, p. 145, footnote 14, preamble 2. 
2. Western Christian Advocate, Volume XI., p. 94, col. 5; September 
27, 1844. Elliott’s statement is as follows: 

“The part of the proposed plan which provides that no intrusion 
shall take place by the two Churches across the line of division, 
after it shall have been defined, seems particularly obnoxious to 
many in the north. Yet it is precisely such a regulation as exists 
between the Methodist Episcopal Church and the British Metho- 
dists. The refusal to observe this must arise from the considera- 
tion, that our southern brethren act the part of schismatics in 
withdrawing, or rather seeking an independent organization. For 


168 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


ourselves, we are now unwilling to consider them either as schis- 
matics or even as seceders from the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
and we shall continue so to think and act until we are compelled by 
the necessity of the case to think and act otherwise. It would 
much better suit our views, could it be done, that the Methodist 
Episcopal Church in the United States would be fairly divided into two 
great independent, yet connected bodies, to be entitled, the 
Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States in the north, and the Methodist 
Episcopal Church in the South. 

“We write not these things because we are in favor of separa- 
tion, aS some may suppose. We are not in favor of separation 
now, nor for the causes on account of which it may now take. 
place. Yet we believe the time may come, and is not distant, when 
a division of the Methodist Episcopal Church may be as Scriptu- 
rally, and as properly made, as that classes, circuits, districts, and 
conferences may be divided. And though there may not be suf-. 
ficient reasons for such a division without schism, yet if there 
be such reasons as a large number believe to be sufficient, even in 
this case, it is a grave matter to decide what is best to be done.’” 

For objections to a fixed line of separation, see the report of 
North Ohio conference in Ibid., p. 89, cols. 4-5; September 20, 1844 
and Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XV., p. 162, 
col, 2; Year, 1844. 

3. Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, pp. 122-3. The para- 
graph pertinent to our study at this point is as follows: 

‘It had been too much to expect, considering the weakness of 
men, suddenly aroused to resistance, as the Southern Churches 
were, by the unlooked-for action in the cases of Bishop Andrew 
and brother Harding, there should not, in some instances, have 
escaped expressions of resentment and unkindness. Or that, put 
to the defense of the majority of the General Conference, where the 
evil complained of was so serious, the advocates of that majority 
should not sometimes have expressed themselves in terms 
which seemed harsh and unjust. We deeply deplore it, and pray 
that, for the time to come, such exhibitions of a mortifying frailty 
may give place to Christian moderation. We invoke the spirit of peace 
and holiness. That brother should be esteemed as deserving best, 
who shall do most for the promotion of peace, Surely this is a 
time of all others, in our day, when we should seek and pursue 
peace. <A continuance of strife between North and South must 
prove prejudicial on both sides. The separation is made — form- 
ally, legally made — and let peace ensue. In Christ’s name let 
there be peace. Whatever is needful to be done, or worth the 
doing, may be done in peace. We especially exhort brethren of 
the border conferences and societies, to forbear each other in love, 
and labor after peace. Let every one abide by the law of the 
General Conference, with respect to our bounds, and choose for 
himself with Christian temper, and permit others to choose with- 
out molestation, between North and South. Our chief care should 
be to maintain ‘the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.’ 
Methodism, preserved in what makes it one the world over — the 
purity of its doctrines, the efficiency of its discipline, its unworld- 
liness, its zeal for God, its self-devotion — is of infinitely greater 
value than a question of boundary or General Conference juris- 
diction merely.”’ 

That peace was desired by southern leaders is further shown by 
a letter of Bishop Capers to a presiding elder: ‘“‘What you say 
concerning border societies, deeply interests me. What have we 
to do with ‘War?’ ‘Border war.’ It is all of the Devil, first and 
last; a war in which he that fights hardest serves Satan best. It is 
not thus that we serve Christ. I am so deeply impressed with 
the conviction, my dear Moorman, that if even you were to turn a 
man of war, I should not hesitate to remove you from your Dis- 
trict.’ (Southern Christian Advocate, Volume X., p. 170, col, 27 
April 2, 1847) Capers was elected bishop in 1846. 


19. 


The Border Warfare 169 


Supra, p. 142. 

Western Christian Advocate, Volume XII., p. 74, cols. 5-6; August 
22, 1845. Cf. Ibid., p. 75, cols. ‘2-3. 

Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume XIII., p. 95, col. 1; August 
14, 1845. In a letter to Bishop Andrew, dated, July 15, 1845, he 
says that he had formerly made the statement: ‘‘Guard well the 
outposts.’’ He said he might be suspected of policy, but that he 
meant simply that the resolutions of the General Conference of 
1844 should be strictly observed. ‘“‘These resolutions carried out 
in the spirit of Christian forbearance and kindness, especially with 
the joint aid of the Editors on both sides of the line would soon 
produce peace, and quietness, and mutual Christian confidence in 
all these borders . . . The pestiferous insinuations that if I 
attend Northern Conferences I would employ my influence to in- 
duce preachers and members to change their side of the line, and 
the suspicion of ‘policy’ in my resolution to attend those Con- 
ferences so situated, being in my official division of the work, is 
worthy of the morbid source from which it emanated. Ministers, 
local and travelling, of every grade and office in the M. E. Church, 
and all the border stations and societies on both sides, should be 
perfectly free to remain as they are, North or South, or being on 
the one side, to adhere to the other. And in either case, not 
even the slightest suspicion of ‘blame’ should be attached to any 
one. This is the letter, and spirit and design of the plan of 
separation.”’ 

Western Christian Advocate, Volume XII., p. 74, cols. 5-6; August 
22, 1845. Relative to Elliott, Soule wrote: “I assure you that 
nothing has given me more pain since the close of the last Gene- 
ral Conference, than the recent proclamation, by the Western 
Christian Advocate, of an undying warfare against the South.’’ 
(Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume XIII., p. 98, col. 6; August 
21, 1845). The changing attitude of Elliott towards the South 
probably was a result of the bitterness which was being stirred 
up against that section in the North. 

Armstrong, The Old Baltimore Conference, p. 294. Cf. Sutton, The 
Methodist Church Property Case, p. 142. 

Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, pp. 152-3. 


. “For Conferences to the time of their next session after the organ- 


ization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and for stations 
and Societies to the time of the first session of their respective 
Annual Conferences subsequent to said organization.’’ 


. Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, p. 153. 
. Western Christian Advocate, Volume XIIL., p. 11, col. 1; May 1, 1846. 


. Armstrong, The Old Baltimore Conference, p. 293. 
- Richmond Christian Advocate,. Volume XIII., p. 173, cols. 1-6; 


January 1, 1846, Cf. Ibid., p. 197, cols. 1-6; February 12, 1846 and 
Ibid., p. 201, cols. 1-3; February 19, 1846. 


. Virginia Sermon Pamphlets, Volume 2—An address to the People 


of the County of Accomac by George P. Scarburgh and 15 others. 


. Armstrong, The Old Baltimore Conference, pp. 291-2. 
. Western Christian Advocate, Volume XVI., p. 94, cols. 5-6; June 


13, 1849. 


. Elliott, The Great Secession, cols. 710-11. This trial was held in 


1850. It illustrates as well as any other the character of the 
controversies in that section. For an illustration of a somewhat 
different character, see Norwood, The Schism in the Methodist 
Church, 1844, pp. 1382-5. 

Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, p. 217. Cf. Journal 


‘of General Conference, 1848, p. 168; and Southwestern Christian 


Advocate, Volume X., No. 1; October 31, 1845. The editor of the 
Pittsburg Christian Advocate (Volume XII., p. 165, col. 5; Novem- 
ber 5, 1845) favored permitting the southern Methodist Church to 
come to Parkersburg, even though it were north of the line of 
separation and contrary to the Plan of Separation. 


170 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


20. 
21. 
22. 
23. 


24, 


25. 


26. 
27. 


28. 
29. 


30. 


31. 
32. 


Southwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., No. 50; October 16, 
1845. 

Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume XIIL, p. 138, cols. 5-6; 
October 30, 1845. 

Journal of General Conference, 1848, pp. 168-70. See also, Sutton, 
The Methodist Church Property Case, pp. 218-19. 

Southwestern Christian Advocate, Volume X., No. 28; May 8, 1846. 
This rebuff may have been responsible for the same writer’s libel 
on the women of the North: 

“Up here they do not look like our ladies. The tout ensemble 
of their physical form, bating the features of the face, is not alto- 
gether unlike that of Cherokee females. Their dresses are badly 
fitted to their labor-worn and flattened frames. Their arms and 
fingers are disproportionately long, their hands large, and knuckles 
look swelled and wrinkled; their countenance is woe-begone, flat 
and cold . . . With all the rouge and white lead with which 
they bedaub their faces, and all the festoons of curled hair from 
the dead with which they.crown themselves, I feel sorry for them.’’ 
(Western Christian Advocate, Volume XIII, p. 23, col. 2; May 22, 
1846). The writer, one Hanner, was’a delegate to the first south- 
ern General Conference. 

Quarterly Review, Volume I., p. 546; Year, 1847. A part of the 
statement is as follows: 

“The opposing clainis of the two parties were brought into im- 
mediate conflict, by appointments made and published, under 
different authorities, for preaching and divine worship, at the 
same hour of the same day, and in the same church, by two 
different preachers, for each of whom the parties respectively 
claimed the use of the pulpit. To prevent collision and with the 
intent that the house should not be occupied at all, on the day 
referred to, John Armstrong, one of the original trustees to whom 
the lot had been conveyed, and holding also other official stations 
in the collective church at Maysville, and being the representative 
of one of the contending parties, had the house fastened up; but 
other and more numerous officers and trustees of the other party, 
had the doors opened, and occupied the church, with their 
preachers.”’ 

Southwestern Christian Advocate, Volume X., No. 1; October 31, 
1845. 

Ibid., No, 14; January 30, 1846. 

Elliott, The Great Secession, cols. 613-16. Elliott says that the 
Maysville Church decided unanimously, at first, for the northern 
Church. 

Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume II (New Series, p. 44; 
March 16, 1848. 
Quarterly Review, Volume IL., pp. 546-89; 1847. See also, Richmond 
Christian Advocate, Volume II (New Series), pp. 36-48, passim; 
March 2-238, 1848. In each source, the entire decision is given. It 
may be that this decision influenced the southern Church to more 
fully protect the rights of its members, At any rate, the ‘‘Metho- 
dist Expositor and True Issue’’ was established in Cincinnati about 
1848 for the distinct purpose of presenting the case of the Church, 
South, along the Kentucky border. (Redford, Life and Times of 
Bishop Kavanaugh, p. 331). 

Blliott (The Great Secession, cols. 617-18) wrote: The decision 
of the Judge is not one founded on the principles of the common 
law; but is one founded on the theory introduced by Church revo- 
lutionists, the adoption of which would scatter to the winds the 
tenure of all religious and charitable trusts.’’ It will be seen that 
the advocates of each side had little confidence in decisions of the 
courts, when they were opposed to their own desires. 
Southwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., No. 22; March 
28, 1845. 

Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, pp. 118-20. 
Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, pp. 142-3. 


33. 


34. 


44, 
45. 
46. 


47. 
48. 


The Border Warfare 171 


Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume XIX., p. 186, col. 4; July 
2, 1845. The activities of this and the Western Christian Advocate 
were responsible for attempts to forbid these papers to circulate in 
the South. (Norwood, The Schism in the Methodist Church, pp. 
140-41). 

Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XI., No. 4; November 20, 
1846. On the other hand, the editor of the same paper (under a 
different name) declared that the southern church was prospering 
in spite of the Cincinnati and New York Advocates, (Southwestern 
Christian Advocate, Volume X., No. 17; February 20, 1846). 


. Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XI., No. 7; December 11, 


1846. 


. Ibid., Volume XIII., No. 3; November 17, 1848. Cf. Ibid., Volume 


XIV., No. 50; October 11, 1850, 


. Journal of General Conference, 1848, p. 116. 
. Ibid., p. 55. Cf. Marlay, Life of Bishop Morris, pp. 230-32. 
. Marlay, Life of Bishop Morris, p. 232. It seems strange that 


Ebenezer church would have made such a charge if it were not 
true. To any unbiased person it is apparent that the two state- 
ments are absolutely opposed to each other. Somebody lied. 


. Ibid., pp. 232-3. 

. Elliott, The Great Secession, cols. 645-6. 

. Journal] of General Conference, 1848, p. 68. 

. Kansas Historical Collections, Volume IX., pp. 217-19. For an 


opposite statement see Ibid., Volume X., p. 215 and also a Manu- 
script copy of at least part of the proceedings, in Bishop Ham- 
line’s correspondence at Garrett Biblical Institute, It seems 
impossible to harmonize the two accounts, but it is to be noted 
that, according to the manuscript account, only about twelve voted 
to remain in the northern Church. WBither account shows con- 
clusively that the welfare of the Indians was not the primary 
consideration. 
That is, the first vote was final when favorable to the North. 
Kansas Historical Collections, Volume IX., pp. 217-19. 
Journal of General Conference, 1848, pp. 73-5. No more than six 
votes were cast against any of these resolutions. 
Journal of General Conference, 1848, p. 117. 
Southern Christian Advocate, Volume X., p. 170, col. 2; April 2, 
1847. Cf. Pittsburg Christian Advocate, Volume XII., p. 126, col. 
3; August 27, 1845. The editor’s statement is: ‘‘And our chief 
regret now is, not that separation has taken place, but that it has 
not been effected peaceably, as was contemplated in the plan 
adopted by the General Conference. Both sides cast the blame on 
each other, of the bad feelings which had been engendered. 
Heaven knows we are both at fault.’’ 

Professor Norwood has some additional illustrations of this 
unchristian border strife in his “‘Schism in the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, 1844,” pp. 126-46. ; 


CHAPTER XIV 


THE DIVISION OF THE BOOK CONCERN PROPERTY 


The General Conference of 1844 had recommended to 
annual conferences the suspension of the Sixth Restrictive 
Article so that the Book Concern property might be divided. 
When this permission was granted by annual conferences, 
division of the property was fully provided for. Commis- 
sioners representing the northern Church were appointed to 
negotiate with southerr® commissioners.} 

The success of the plan for the division of the Church 
property seemed assured when northern conferences began 
to indicate their attitude. New York conference concurred 
in the proposed change, 143 to 38;? Troy conference ap- 
proved, 123 to 6; while Providence conference cast a unani- 
mous affirmative vote.* At least four other conferences were 
overwhelmingly for the change of the Sixth Restrictive 
Article and the consequent division of the Church property.® 

But while some northern conferences desired an equitable 
division of the property, others did not. The fact that most 
of the concurring conferences cast their votes soon after 
the adjournment of the General Conference leads one to sus- 
pect that influence was brought to bear upon the rest for the 
purpose of defeating concurrence. The evidence supports 
the suspicion. The editor of Zion’s Herald, in July, 1844, 
suggested that the decision on the change of the restrictive 
article be deferred until the following year. He also raised 
the question whether northern conferences had a moral right 
to vote affirmatively. He hinted that New England confer- 
ences had the power and might use it to prevent peaceable 
division.® | 

While several conferences recorded a negative vote on 
changing the Sixth Restrictive Article, they maintained, 
outwardly at least, the most cordial attitude towards the 
southern Church. Baltimore conference declared that their 
vote for non-concurrence was not due to any opposition to 
an equitable division of the Church funds.’ North Indiana 
conference said they had “no desire to withhold from our 


172 


The Division of the Book Concern Property 173 


southern brethren any portion of the property of the church 
that may justly belong to them,” but that they were influenced 
“by motives wholly apart from and above pecuniary consid- 
erations.”§ A majority of the delegates from Illinois confer- 
ence to the General Conference of 1844 had voted in favor 
of the Plan of Separation. But the division among the 
delegates is suggestive of the struggle in that conference. 
Stamper and Berryman advocated concurrence while Peter 
Cartwright set himself to the task of defeating the measure. 
It was undoubtedly due to the exertions of Cartwright that 
the conference refused to accept the proposal of the General 
Conference. But they did agree that if a division of the 
Church were decided upon by the Louisville Convention, the 
southern Church should have “their full share of the funds, 
provided they do not alter the Discipline in any material 
Sway a 

With the exception of the ten conferences which have 
been considered, northern conferences seem to have been 
opposed to any concession to the southern Church. New 
Jersey conference voted 103 to 2, against a change of the 
Sixth Restrictive Article14 Maine!? and North Ohio confer- 
ences postponed action on the proposed change, the latter 
on the ground, that there was no power to divide the Book 
Concern Funds and that it was unnecessary.* Due possibly 
to the warmth of feeling over southern attacks on Bond, 
Indiana conference voted, 76 to 2, against the change.'* 

Ohio and Philadelphia conferences were real surprises to 
southern Methodists. All Ohio delegates to the General 
Conference of 1844 had voted in favor of suspending the 
sixth article. Hamline was a member of the “Committee 
of Nine” and Elliott moved the adoption of the resolutions 
and spoke in their favor. But in the annual conference 
of 1844 only one affirmative vote was cast.1® Philadelphia 
conference voted, 104 to 12, against the proposal® This 
action from a conference which had slaveholding territory 
within its boundaries drew the following attack from the 
editor of the Richmond Christian Advocate: “We rejoice 
that there are twelve men in the Philadelphia conference 
teady to extend even-handed justice to their southern 
brethren. Ten righteous Lots would have saved Sodom; 
twelve generous and honest men shall protect the Philadelphia 
conference from any censure of ours.’’!* 


174 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


When the votes were counted it was found that southern 
conferences had cast 971 votes for and 3 against the General 
Conference recommendation; while in northern conferences 
there were 1164 undeniably affirmative and 1067 negative 
votes. Therefore, there were 2135 affirmative and 1070: 
negative votes.18 Since the Constitution of the Church re- 
quired a three-fourths majority, annual conferences had 
defeated the plan for a peaceable division of the Church 
property.}® 

The editor of Zion’s Herald considered that the vote of 
annual conferences was final.2® But there were others who 
took a different view of the situation. One editor said 
he knew of no one in all his territory who desired a division 
of the Church,?! but he urged that a settlement of the ques- 
tion be reached before the convening of the first General 
Conference of the Church, South, so that relations between 
the two churches might be more cordial.??. And a contributor 
to the Western Christian Advocate believed there were con- 
siderations higher than the mere letter of the law. He ad- 
mitted that the three-fourths vote had not been obtained, but 
cited — what is undoubtedly the fact — that many northern 
conferences had refused to vote for the change lest they 
should seem to encourage division. He pointed out that 
many conferences had declared their willingness to divide 
the Church funds if a division actually took place. His 
reasons for an equitable division of the Church funds were 
_ similar to those used by the counsel for the southern Church 

when the case was carried to the courts: (1) that the public 
would demand that they remain true to their promises; (2) 
that the Book Concern money had come as a result of sacri- 
fices by all the preachers, North and South; (3) that when 
the Book Concern building at New York had burned in 
1836, the South contributed large sums to rebuild it; (4) 
that the bishops had recognized the Plan of Separation as in 
force; and (5) that widows and orphans of southern min- 
isters had avalid claim on the earnings of the Book Concern.?% 

The first reaction of southerners to the decision of the 
northern Church was a determination to have peace whether 
or not they received their share of the Church property. 
One writer commented on the change in tone of some 
northern papers during the year following the General Con- 
ference of 1844, and protested that “Church dignities, money 


The Division of the Book Concern Property 175 


and such like, must form no part of this dispute.”*4 The 
editor of the Richmond Christian Advocate asserted that 
“more of character, influence and usefulness would be lost 
by thus attempting to recover our property than would be 
compensated by the possession of a thousand fold more 
property than is involved in the dispute. Let it go. Let 
it fulfil its mission of unrighteousness, and work out its 
consummation of misery in the hands of those who wrest 
it from its rightful owners.””° And another editor, referring 
to the action of Ohio conference, declared: “If this, or any 
other conference, wish to pocket that portion of the Book 
Concern and ‘Charter Fund’ that justly belongs to us — and 
to drive us off by unjust legislation, or any unholy adminis- 
tration of the law, we envy them neither their piety nor 
the position they will occupy in the eyes of the Christian 
world.’’6 

With the failure of northern conferences to suspend the 
sixth restrictive article, the hope of southerners for a peace- 
able division of the Church property was destroyed, even 
though a majority of northern preachers approved such a 
division.2* When the Book Committee of New York de- 
cided not to pay dividends to any annual conference until 
1848, when the General Conference would meet, the decision 
was considered by southerners a nullification of the Plan of 
Separation.?8 

The first General Conference of the Church, South, ap- 
pointed three commissioners to represent them on the prop- 
erty issue. They were given full power to settle the whole 
question 1n conjunction with the commissioners who had 
been appointed by the northern Church.29 August 25, 1846 
they notified the northern commissioners that they were 
ready to meet them for the purpose of dividing the Church 
property. In this communication the southern commissioners 
attempted to show that a constitutional majority of the min- 
isters had declared in favor of suspending the Sixth Article. 
They held that conferences which did not vote at all should 
either be counted on the affirmative side or not at all. In 
either case, they asserted that three-fourths of the ministers 
had favored the plan of dividing the funds. Finally, they 
urged that a settlement be made peaceably so that an appeal 
to the courts would be unnecessary.®° 


176 _ Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


October 14, 1846, the northern commissioners replied. 
They protested that they had no authority to act, inasmuch 
as they had not been officially notified that three-fourths 
of the ministers had voted to change the Sixth Restrictive 
Article, and they had no power to demand of conference 
secretaries the results of the vote on this question. They 
therefore refused to act on the division of the Church 
property.*4. Their reply was in perfect accord with the 
statement of Bishop Hedding, made a year later, in which he 
said that the General Conference had no right to accede to 
the demands of the South until three-fourths of the ministers 
had agreed to the change and the following General Confer- 
ence had sanctioned the proposed division of the property. 
Even then he expressed doubts as to the constitutionality 
of the proceedings.*” 


A further attempt seems to have been made by southerners 
to secure their share of the Book Concern property from the 
northern commissioners. But Finley, for the North, refused 
to accede to the demands of the southern Church. As reasons 
for his refusal he assigned the following: (1) The annual 
conferences had refused to authorize a division of the 
property so the commissioners had no power to act. (2) 
Northern commissioners were not given authority by the 
General Conference to decide whether a sufficient number 
of votes had been cast in favor of a division by the annual 
conferences. (3) Secretaries of annual conferences were 
not bound to state the official vote and some of them dared 
not to do so without permission. (4) “The South have not 
complied with the conditions on which such a division was 
to be made. Provided the annual conferences had agreed to 
alter the sixth restrictive article, they did not find the 
necessity of their secession, or withdrawal from the Methodist 
Episcopal Church.” The necessity for division must be 
determined by a vote of all the members of all the societies 
jn circuits and stations, and this had not been done.?? Such 
an interpretation of the Plan of Separation very properly 
called forth the condemnation of the South.* Had Finley 
been content to rest his case on the action of annual con- 
ferences, he might have had reasonable ground for rejecting 
the overtures of the South. But the other statements seem 
to be nothing more than mere subterfuges, designed to keep 
the funds of the Church for the North by fair or foul means. 


The Division of the Book Concern Property Lei 


The action of northern conferences on the election of dele- 
gates to the General Conference of 1848 was indicative of 
the attitude which that body would assume on the division 
of the Church property. Illinois®® and Ohio conferences were 
opposed to the Plan and considered it a nullity.2® In some 
of the conferences the issue was squarely raised and new 
and younger men sent to Conference. Thus, in New York 
conference, Bangs, Olin and Levings were not elected “be- 
cause it was supposed that they were in favor of a just 
division of the Church property, between the North and the 
South.’’" Lee wrote from Pittsburg, the seat of the General 
Conference, that most of the former members had been 
excluded because they desired an equitable and peaceable 
division of the property.28 Of those who were members of 
the General Conference of 1844, only forty-one were re- 
turned in 1848.°9 

May 11, 1848, the southern commissioners sent an address 
to ithe General Conference of} the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, in which they stated the failure to settle the property 
question and asked that the Conference seek a solution. To 
this statement no direct reply was made.*® <A week later, 
the southern comissioners wrote, asking the northern com- 
missioners whether they considered themselves authorized to 
act; and if not, if they had anything to propose to secure a 
settlement according to the Plan of Separation. Ten days 
later, Peck and Finley replied that they did not deem them- 
selves authorized to act, since annual conferences had failed 
to consent to the division of the property; and that they had 
nothing to propose.*4 


But the Property Question was not ignored by the Con- 
ference. Early in the sessions, the Committee on the State 
of the Church was asked to “to inquire into the propriety and 
expediency of offering to refer the above question to dis- 
interested arbiters, to be chosen by the parties, for amicable 
adjustment, and report thereon’*? In answer to this request, 
the Committee declared that, without the consent of the 
annual conferences, they had no authority to enter into arbi- 
tration with the commissioners of the Church, South, in 
regard to the “claims set up by them to a division of the 
vested funds of the Methodist Episcopal Church’’.*% 


For the purpose of bringing about a settlement with the 
Church, South, the Conference instructed the commissioners 


178 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


who had been appointed in 1844 that if, after having sought 
the opinion of eminent counsel, they should discover that they 
could “legally and constitutionally”’submit the dispute to 
arbitration, they should do so and abide by the decision. 
If the southern commissioners started suit in the courts, they 
were authorized to submit the dispute to arbitration under 
the direction of the court before which they might appear. 
If no suit were begun and arbitration were found to be im- 
possible, ““The General Conference being exceedingly desirous 
of effecting an amicable settlement of said claim,” voted to 
ask the annual conferences to suspend the sixth restrictive 
article so that arbitration might be possible.*4 

That the General Conference intended to settle the dispute 
on the basis of justice and equity seemed improbable to the 
southern Church. Lee declared that the resolutions had been 
passed “merely to turn the current of public opinion setting 
in so strong against the Conference.” In his opinion, the 
General Conference had acted “mainly with a view to propi- 
tiate common scorn and public indignation.” He assured 
his “contemporaries in and out of the Church that the action 
of the General Conference in this matter richly deserves 
to be classed with the things known among men as solemn 
farces! We have not the first idea that a desire existed in the 
body to meet this great question on Christian principles. In- 
dividuals may have felt so; but there was nothing like it in 
the body.’’**Another editor linked the rejection of Pierce as 
the fraternal delegate of the southern Church with the un- 
willingness of the Northern Church to divide the property. 
His interpretation of the Conference action was as follows: 
“We haye your money and wish to keep it; if you will, like 
good Christians, allow us to keep it all, and make no ado 
about it - that is, pay us, as the price of our friendship, some 
$250,000 we will readily and cordially fraternize with you; 
but should you be so unreasonable as to ask your own, and 
especially should you attempt to coerce it out of us, it will 
be impossible to recognize you as a legitimate branch of the 
Methodist family.’’4¢ 

Since 1844, demands had come from the South for an 
equitable share of the Church property.*7 September 29, 1847, 
Kentucky conference passed a resolution favoring the prose- 
cution of the northern Church in order to obtain the South’s 
share of the common funds.48 Following the General Con- 


The Division of the Book Concern Property 179 


ference of 1848, Tennessee conference took similar action.*® 
But nothing was officially done until after the declaration 
of the northern commissioners that they had sought legal ad- 
vice and had decided that they had no power to act with 
the southern representatives? The answer of the Church 
South, was to start two suits against the Methodist Episcopal 
Church,51 one at New York, June 13, and one at Cincinnati, 
July 12, 1849. Both cases were heard by the United States 
Circuit courts.” | 
The New York case occupied the attention of the Court 
for ten days, and the Judges’ decision was favorable to the 
southern Church. The chief contention of the counsel for 
the northern Church was that the conferences had not given 
the necessary three-fourths vote to change the Sixth Res- 
trictive Article and that therefore the General Conference 
was unable to proceed farther, even if there were the desire 
to do so. But the counsel for the plaintiffs established to 
the Court’s. satisfaction that the funds of the Church had 
been accumulated as a result of the labors of preachers of 
all conferences and that the dividends from the Book Con- 
cern belonged to the beneficiaries, although distributed by 
the conferences. The dividends could not be taken from the 
retired ministers, their wives and children unless it were 
shown that they had not kept the conditions under which 
they received a portion of the Book Concern’s earnings.*? 


When the argument had been completed, Judge Nelson 
suggested that “it would be much better for the interests of 
this Church, for the interests of all concerned, if, after a 
full and fair investigation, both of the facts and the law of 
the case, the parties could amicably take it up, and, by the 
aid of friends and counsel, come to an amicable decision of 
the controversy.”°* Thereupon, the northern commissioners 
proposed that the whole question be arbitrated.. The southern 
commissioners were willing, provided the northerners would 
“admit their claim to a full share of the property in question,” 
and arbitrate only the amount of property to be turned over 
to them. This proposal was rejected, and the negotiations 
ended in failure. November 11, 1851, the decision of Judge 
Nelson, directing a pro rata share of the property to be 
given the southern Church, was handed down.*® 


Northern leaders were much chagrined at the result. The 
Michigan Christian Advocate defended the northern Church 


Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


by saying that it was “about as easy “for a camel to go 
through the eye of a needle’, as for justice to secure her 
rights when the rapacious maw of the slave interests yawns 
to receive them.”56 Parsons said Simpson had “called out 
that same old park of artillery which, for the last six years, 
has been thundering from the battlements of abolitionism 
against the Methodist Episcopal Church South, and has bid 
it speak in contravention and impeachment of the late de- 
cision of the United States Circuit Court. We believe this 
suit is the first instance, in the history of our country, when 
any of our high courts have been gravely charged with 
corruption, or had their opinions arraigned before the 
people.”°? 

The Cincinnati case, decided in July, 1852, was a victory 
for the northern Church. The Maysville Case was used 
as a precedent to show that the General Conference had 
the power to divide the Church and that the funds of the 
Book Concern were held for the benefit of the worn-out 
preachers, their widows and children. The decision of the 
Court was in general agreement with the claims of the 
northern Church. Judge Leavitt decided: (1) That the 
General Conference had no power to divide the Church; and 
(2) that there was no claim in the action of the General 
Conference of 1844 to such power. He affirmed (3) that 
the General Conference was prohibited from applying the 
produce of the Book Concern except for a specified purpose 
and in a specified manner; and annual conferences had re- 
fused to remove the restriction. He asserted (4) that the 
Book Concern was a charity for the benefit of the ministers, 
their widows and children, and that those who withdrew from 
the Church ceased to be beneficiaries of the charity. He 
admitted (5) that ministers or members were privileged 
to withdraw whenever they desired, but he maintained that 
“in withdrawing they take with them none of the rights 
of property pertaining to them while in the Church,” and 
the separation of 1845 was considered of this character. His 
conclusion was that the defendents were not guilty of “breach 
of trust or any improper use or application of the property 
or funds in their keeping.’’®§ 

When the New York case was decided in favor of the 
South, northern papers were found in opposition to the de- 
cision; when the northern Church was successful at Cin- 


The Division of the Book Concern Property 181 


cinnati, southerners were convinced that the result was with- 
out reason or justice. Elliott wrote that “the St. Louis 
Advocate laments that no earthly power ‘can rectify the 
wrongs which have been done to the many poor, suffering, 
superannuated preachers, widows and orphans, who have by 
these means been deprived of a great part of their means of 
support.’ ”’ He quoted the editor of the Nashville Christian 
Advocate as saying that “lobby counsel and outdoor in- 
fluence’ had “been busy in producing this result against the 
clear conviction of both moral equity and legal right.” 
According to Elliott, this paper was “convinced that no good 
thing could not come out of Ohio and the late trial staggered 
their faith.’ 


Both cases were appealed to the United States Supreme 
Court, but the property question was not argued in Wash- 
ington until April, 1854.69 In the meantime, a settlement 
was arranged by the New York commissioners. In May, 
1853, the eastern commissioners, at the instance of Judge 
M’Lean, held a meeting which agreed on a basis of settle- 
ment if the western and southern commissioners consented. 
Court proceedings were to cease, and the decision of the 
Court at New York was to be binding upon the Western 
Book Concern as well as upon that at New York. To 
this request the western commissioners refused to accede. In 
this decision they were supported by their counsel, Mr. 
Ewing, who stated that they had no right to enter into a 
compromise on the question at issue.® 

In spite of the decision of the Cincinnati commissioners, 
those at New York continued negotiations. In November, 
1853, they met with the southern commissioners and ar- 
ranged a settlement of the property question as far as they 
were concerned. They agreed to pay $191,000 in cash, of 
which the dividends due and unpaid should be a part, and 
turn over all the debts owed the Book Concern by people 
residing in southern territory. Further, the printing estab- - 
lishments at Richmond, Charleston and Nashville were to 
become the property of the Church, South. The unpaid 
portion of the Book Concern dividends, which had been held 
back because of the dispute were to be paid as soon as 
possible.** That the decision to arbitrate the property ques- 
tion and pay over the funds was not due to any sense of 
justice on the part of the northern commissioners is clear 


182 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


from their report to the General Conference of 1856, in 
which they said: “Your committee beg leave to assure the 
General Conference, that while this arrangement was affected 
in full view of the legal decisions already made, and the 
moral certainty of those destined to follow, they were also 
prompted by the strictest economy, upon the part of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, a very considerable sum being 
saved to the Book (Concern ).’® 

Great was the rejoicing of southern leaders over the 
outcome of the New York suit, especially since they hoped 
that better relations between the two churches might result. 
William Smith of Virginia expressed the hope that fraternal 
relations might be established. To his overture Elliott re- 
plied: “The Scriptures say, ‘first pure, then peaceable’., We 
therefore first pray for purity, and then for peace and 
amity.”®° Dr. Wightman, editor of the Southern Christian 
Advocate, also suggested the re-establishment of fraternal 
relations. But again Elliott refused the offer of friendship 
and declared that there was “a long list of misdeeds of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, that must be amended 
before there will be cordial amity between the two Churches. 
And the proceedings of the south in regard to the property 
question contain a pretty long list of additional wrong acts 
that will be difficult either to remove, explain, or bear, on 
the part of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in view of 
fraternization.”°® But in spite of Elliott’s ill-temper, Wight- 
man professed to believe that there were many, even in the 
North, who rejoiced over the settlement.§* 


After the Cincinnati Court decided in favor of the northern 
Church, Judge M’Lean, in a letter dated October 29, 1852, 
advised very “strongly and decidedly” that the Church at 
the North propose a compromise on the property question.® 
This suggestion does not seem to have met with favor on 
the part of the Cincinnati commissioners. But the latter 
submitted a proposition to the bishops, in which they sug- 
gested the advisability of again asking annual conferences 
to permit the division of the Church property. The proposal 
was dropped because not only the bishops, but also the New 
York commissioners, considered such a proposal useless.® 

When the eastern commissioners’ made their proposal to 
settle the dispute on the basis of the New York Court’s 
decision, those at Cincinnati refused because they said it 


The Division of the Book Concern Property 183 


would seem a repudiation of what they considered a just 
decision in the Cincinnati case and an approval of a wrong 
decision at New York. Further, they declared that there 
was no evidence that the Church desired any such action. 
Resolutions expressing their sentiments were submitted to 
Judge M’Lean*® who declined to forward them to the south- 
ern commissioners. The western commissioners then sent 
their statement directly to the southern commissioners who 
refused to consider them.” 


That the Cincinnati case would be appealed to the Supreme 
Court was the general opinion,’ and such was the result. 
But the editor of Zion’s Herald was not optimistic as to the 
probable outcome for he expected the decision to be against 
the North, “knowing how completely the atmosphere at 
Washington is filled with the miasma of slavery.”73 The 
result justified the fears of the northern faction, for the 
position of the southern Church was fully sustained.” 

The decree of the Court was held in abeyance, owing to 
the tardy decision of the western commissioners to settle 
the dispute out of court. They offered the southern Church 
$70,000 but the offer was promptly declined because the 
southern representatives believed they were entitled to over 
$90,000. The agreement was finally reached that the south- 
ern Church should be paid $80,000 in cash and that the 
debts owed the Book Concern by southerners, amounting to 
$12,926.61, should be turned over to the southern Church 
for collection. That the northern commissioners considered 
that they had struck a rare bargain appears from their state- 
ment to the General Conference of 1856: “Indeed, when we 
reflect that the Southern debts were all past due, many of 
them outlaws, some worthless, and all, while in the hands 
of the Book Concern, of little or no value; and that the 
South claimed, and could collect (under the decree of the 
Court) the interest on their portion of the capital since the 
rendering of the decree, and which was not taken into ac- 
count in our calculation, although it would raise their propor- 
tion about three thousand dollars; and that the extension of 
credit beyond ordinary business limits and the proffered 
offer of purchases, with which the Southern propositions 
were accompanied, were greatly advantageous to the Concern 
at this crisis, we did not perceive that their proposition 
materially varied from our own.’ 


184 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


A recent writer has said that “few impartial minds will 
doubt that the decision of the Supreme Court rendered 
substantial justice.“ But the judgment of history is not 
in accord with the opinions of leaders at the time. Elliott 
objected because Judge Nelson, who had written the opinion 
in the New York case, represented the Court in the final 
decision. But the fact that the Court was unanimously for 
the South weakens his charge of bias. In view of a later 
decision which was very generally condemned in the North 
and especially by Methodists, Elliott’s complaint is particu- 
larly interesting. “Surely the case before the Supreme Court 
was of importance enough to have a decision from Judge 
Taney, or some other judge of the bench, who, had not 
prejudiced the case.”" And the western commissioners 
suggested that the Supreme Court was not to be trusted. 
“For ourselves, we do not regret that the Supreme Court 
has decided the case. If it was decided according to the 
law, it is well for us, for the Southern Methodist Episcopal 
Church, for the whole country, that the law should be pro- 
claimed by our highest judicial tribunal. If it has been 
decided otherwise, it behooves us all to know how far the 
Supreme Court of the United States can be relied upon.”’® 


Except for the opposition of a few radical Methodist 
papers and leaders in the North, it seems entirely probable 
that the division of the Church funds would have been 
effected with little or no strife. But the long controversy 
in the papers of both churches resulted simply in creating 
hatred instead of restoring and maintaining the cordial rela- 
tions that should have existed. The result of the legal 
battle was favorable to: the Church, South. But so intense 
was the excitement that, for over two decades, the northern 
Church maintained that the property was really theirs.7?7 As 
one surveys the controversy, he is convinced that the north- 
ern Church showed’ a notable lack of magnanimity, fairness 
and desire for justice. This hatred made it easy to fan to 
a flame the passions of the people on the disturbing political 
questions of the decade before the Civil War, and arouse the 
feeling of patriotism towards a section rather than the nation 
as a whole. : 


Supra, p. 146, resolution 7. 
Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume XVIII, p. 183, col. 1; 
June 26, 1844. 


ad ee 


oe 


The Division of the Book Concern Property 185 


Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, p, 213. 

Elliott, The Great Secession, col. 399. 

Rock River (Elliott, The Great Secession, p. 401); Hrie (Western 
Christian Advocate, Volume XI, p. 70, col. 5; August 16, 1844); 
Pittsburg (Pittsburg Christian Advocate, Volume XI., p. 106, col. 
6; July, 1846); and Michigan (Southwestern Christian Advocate, 
Volume IX., p. 18, cols. 4-6; November, 1844). 

Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, pp. 125-6. The 
statement reads: ‘‘We regret the excitement at the South, for the effect 
it is having in New England, in reference to the resolution that is to 
come before us on a division of the Church-property. It is understood, of 
course, that the South have no legal claim to the property. . 

It is a questionable point whether it will be morally proper for the 
North to sanction, by liberal largesses, a schism which, however 
desirable, if properly conducted, is evidently to be Heitz} 
battery of unceasing hostility and abuse against ourselves. We 
regret to state that these circumstances render the fate of the 
resolution (for dividing the property) exceedingly doubtful in New 
England. Our best hope for it is that it may be deferred a year, 
to ascertain the attitude of the South, but even this is doubtful, 
New England can defeat the measure . . . and she is begin- 
ning to feel that self-respect, as well as moral propriety, will 
compel her to do it.’’ 

Armstrong, The Old Baltimore Conference, pp. 278, 283. 

Herrick and Sweet, A History of the North Indiana Conference, Dao- 
Cartwright, Autobiography, p. 425. 


. Elliott, The Great Secession, col. 404. 
. Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume XIX., p. 154, col. 2; May 


7, 1845. 


. Hiliott, The Great Secession, col, 402. 
. Ibid., cols. 402-4. 
. Western Christian Advocate, Volume XI., p. 102, col. 4; October 


11, 1844. Cf. Elliott, The Great Secession, cols. 406-7. ‘“‘A member 
of the Northwestern conference is reported to have stated openly 
in conference that he had no idea of giving the funds to the 
South, and as one argument he stated that they were extravagant 
and would waste the money if placed in their hands.’’ (South- 
western Christian Advocate, Volume IX., No. 1, col. 6; November 
1, 1844). 


. Southwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., No. 1, col. 5; 


November 1, 1844. 


. Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume XIX., p. 142, col. 4; 


April 16, 1845. 


. Elliott, The Great Secession, col. 409. 

. Concerning some of the negative votes, some question was raised, 
. Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, pp. 146-7. 

. Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XYVIII., p. 154, col. 


2; September 29, 1847. 


. Pittsburg Christian Advocate, Volume XII., p. 34, col. 6; March 


19, 1845. 


. Ibid., Volume XIII., p. 60, cols. 2-4; March 11, 1846. 
. Western Christian Advocate, Volume XIII., p. 18, cols. 3-4; May 


8, 1846. Cf. Southwestern Christian Advocate, Volume X., No. 29; 
May 15, 1846. 


. Southwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., No. 13; January 


24, 1845. 


. Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume XIV., p. 22, cols. 2-3; April 


9, 1846. 


. Southwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., No. 1; November 1, 


1844. 


. Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume II (New Series), p. 22, col. 


1; February 10, 1848. 


. Ibid., Volume XIV., p. 22, cols. 1-4; April 9, 1846. Cf. Southwestern 


Christian Advocate, Volume X., No, 27; May 1, 1846. 


. Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, p. 103. 


186 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


30. 


Ibid., pp. 148-5. The following extract is especially interesting: 

‘It follows hence, that both by the language of the Discipline 
and that of the Plan of Separation, the question was to be settled 
by the aggregate vote of those members of the several annual 
conferences, who were present in their annual sessions, when the 
question came up, and actually voted upon it. If any refused or 
failed to vote, with such we have nothing to do—they cannot be 
regarded as either for or against the measure. They declined the 
right of suffrage by refusing to act, and the determination of the 
question rests with those who were present and voted in accordance 
with the law. In the instance of several annual conferences, the 
vote was contingent, and future events, now to be judged by the 
commissioners, were to give an affirmative or negative character to 
their votes. In the instance of two of these at least (and we 
believe it to be equally true of four) it is susceptible of the 
clearest proof, that by their own official showing, their votes must, 
beyond all doubt, be counted in the affirmative, or not at all.’’ 

In 1849, Baltimore and Philadelphia conferences voted ‘“‘unani- 
mously to suspend the rule.’”’ (Norwood, The Schism in the 
Methodist Church, 1844, p. 162). Such action, in 1845, would have 
avoided years of strife and legal warfare. 


. Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, p. 145. 

. Clark, Life and Times of Hedding, pp. 6061-2. 

. Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XI., No. 6; December 4, 1846. 
. Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume I., (New Series), p. 146, 


COLT: 


. Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XII., No. 3; November 12, 


1847. 


. Pittsburg Christian Advocate, Volume XII., p. 145, col. 6; October 


1, 1845. 


. Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XI., No. 33; June 11, 1847. 


Cf. Ridgeway, The Life of Bishop Janes, p. 110. 


. Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume II (New Series), p. 82, col. 


LeMay 25.1848) 


. Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, p. 144. 

. Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, p. 146. 

SL bIiG: DLO: 

. Journal of General Conference, 1848, p. 54. 

. Ibid., pp. 95, 141. 

. Ibid., pp. 95-6. Cf. Gorrie, History of the Methodist Episcopal 


Church, pp. 113-14. 


. Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume II (New Series), p. 94, col. 


2; June 15, 1848. 


. Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XII., No. 30; May 26, 1848. 
. Western Christian Advocate, Volume XI., p. 70, col. 3; August 16, 


1844. 


. Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XI., No. 52; September 21, 


1847. 
Ibid., Volume XII., No. 30; May. 20, 1848. 


. Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume III (New Series), p. 10, 


cols. 5-6; January 18, 1849. 


- Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XIII., No. 45; September 


1, 1849. 


. Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, p. 151. Cf. Sutton, 


The Methodist Church Property Case, p. 364. 


. Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, pp. 148 ff. 
« Loid. Da 867. 


. Journal of General Conference, 1852, p. 127. Cf. Elliott, The Great 


Secession, cols. 720-21. 


. Quoted in Nashville and Louisville Christian Advocate, Volume 


XVI.; January 8, 1852. 


. Ibid., January 15, 1852. : 

. Elliott, The Great Secession, cols. 793-4. 

. Ibid., col. 794. ar H 
. Ibid., col. 799. 


68. 
. Ibid., p. 246. ; 
70. 


71. 
72. 


The Division of the Book Concern Property 187 


. Journal of General Conference, 1856, p. 245. 

. Ibid., p. 246. 

. Elliott, The Great Secession, cols. 733-4. 

. Journal of Genera] Conference, 1856, p. 276. Cf. Ibid., p. 221. 
. Elliott, The Great Secession, col. 816. 

. Ibid., cols. 815-16. 

. Ibid., col. 814. His statement is as follows: 


“To our northern brethren, we can readily believe that this 
settlement, which lifts from their consciences and better feelings 
a very unpleasant burden, is acceptable. It sets them right once 
more before the community. It quiets a distinctly felt and oft- 
expressed sense of uneasiness on the part of a large body of the 
Methodist laity. We had the opinion volunteered to us in New 
York, not long since, in influential quarters, that no blessing from 
God, no extensive revivals of religion need be expected, till a fair 
settlement was made with the south. Some such feeling we sup- 
pose to have been general.’’ 

The editor of the Buffalo Christian Advocate Was quoted as saying: 
“We are glad in our heart, that we are permitted to announce the 
fact. It will be hailed by the church in general with decided 
Favor (Nashville and Louisville Christian Advocate, Volume 
XVII, December 15, 1853). 

Journal of General Conference, 1856, p. 245. 


Two of the resolutions follow: 

“That while we regret the litigation before the civil courts 
occasioned by the suits brought by the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, and feel disposed to do everything that justice, equity, or 
a Christian spirit may demand, we do not think we are required 
to make any proposition for compromise, or that it would be 
proper for us to do so.” 

“That while we deeply regret the litigation into which the 

Methodist Episcopal Church has been forced, we cannot conceive 
any good reason why the Church we represent and serve, or the 
cause of religion, should suffer disgrace by our being sued, es- 
pecially under the circumstances under which the suit was brought, 
and our appearing as defendants before the Courts of the country.”’ 
The alternative was arbitration or a decision by the courts. 
Journal of General Conference, 1856, pp. 246-7. 
Elliott, The Great Secession, col. 794. The illustration given is the 
statement of Judge Leavitt, at the conclusion of the Cincinnati 
case, ‘‘Although the conclusions to which I have arrived have 
been satisfactory to myself, I experience the highest gratification 
from the reflection that if I have misconceived the points arising 
in the case, and have been led to wrong results, my errors will 
be corrected by that high tribunal to which the rights of these 
parties will, without doubt, be submitted.” 


. Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXV., p. 86, col. 38. 
. Elliott, The Great Secession, col. 799. 

. Journal of General Conference, 1856, pp. 249-50, 254-5. 

. Townsend, A New History of Methodism, Volume IIL., pp. 130-31. 

. Elliott, The Great Secession, col. 800. 

. Journal of General Conference, 1856, pp. 251-3. 

. Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, pp. 171-2. 


CHAPTER AV 


THE TREND OF THE TIMES. 


In the three previous chapters some of the untoward 
results of the General Conference of 1844 have been con- 
sidered. It has been shown that the bitterness between the 
two sections of the Church was accentuated by these con- 
troversies. For a generation or more, the discussion of 
topics connected with the deposition of Bishop Andrew, the 
adherence of border societies and the division of the Church 
funds, stirred old passions to fever pitch and widened the 
breach between the two Methodisms. In the present chapter 
we shall show the trend of the times on the question of 
slavery,! as it related itself to the two churches. 


The attack upon Bishop Andrew in the General Conference 
of 1844 was rightly considered by southern Methodists as a 
thrust at the institution of slavery. Georgia ministers as- 
serted that the decision in the case of Andrew would cause 
a slave insurrection.2, The whole attitude of the General 
Conference on the question of slavery was condemned by the 
Louisville Convention of 1845, and made the basis of the 
resolution asking for a separate Church organization.? 

Local churches and ministers were in complete sympathy 
with southern conferences. A North Carolina church con- 
sidered slavery a civil institution and under the exclusive 
control of the states and territories where it existed. Since 
the Bible did not prohibit slavery they thought that the ques- 
tion of slaveholding should be left “to the enlightened judg- 
ment and conscience of every man.”4 Princess Anne Circuit, 
Virginia, asserted that slavery was “opposed to no law. of 
Methodist discipline, nor to the law of God; neither is it a. 
‘moral evil,’ but is an institution fastened upon us by northern 
‘traders in blood,’ which has been abolished at the north (as 
far as concerns the negroes) by interest, under the garb of 
philanthropy.”’ Abolitionism was “an insatiate Moloch, upon 
whose unholy altars its high priests would sacrifice all that 
is dear to the south—a “foul spirit of the pit,’ whose mildew 


188 


The Trend of the Times 189 


breath has arisen to blast the Church of God.’® Because 
Dr. Bond was supposed to have become: an abolitionist, he 
was termed “a recreant southern man, and unworthy the 
confidence of the South any longer.”® At a meeting held in 
Nashville, July 8, 1844, it was affirmed that it was “the 
right of every member of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
from the bishop to the layman, to hold slaves when the law” 
permitted.’ The Opelousas, Louisiana, church favored ex- 
punging from the Discipline “every provision in regard to 
slavery, except so far as the same may direct the relative 
duties and obligations of master and slave, and this because 
we find nothing in the word of God prohibiting slavery.”§ 

The Louisville Convention and the southern General Con- 
ferences gave official pronouncements on slavery. By the 
former it was considered “as strictly a civil institution,” with 
which the Church had nothing to do except to ameliorate the 
conditions of slaves and carry to them the blessings of the Gos- 
pel message. They contended that, although slavery was every- 
where present at the beginning of the Christian era, neither 
Jesus nor the apostles were against it. It was pointed out 
that early attempts of the Methodist Church to destroy slavery 
had ended in failure and that the law of the Church did not 
consider slavery under all circumstances a sin. Where it 
was not practicable to free the slaves because of a state law 
or where the liberated slave could not “enjoy freedom,” 
emancipation was “not required of any owner of slaves in 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, from the lowest officer up 
to the bishop.’ 

The first southern Methodist General Conference was 
watched with the keenest interest by the North. May 19, 
1846, the Committee on Revision of the Discipline recom- 
mended the retention of the rule on Slavery?” but advised that 
an. explanatory paragraph be added in the language of the 
General Conference resolutions in 1836 and 1840, especially 
that dealing with the petition of Westmoreland Circuit. 
These resolutions asserted that annual conferences had no 
right to interfere with the civil and political relations between 
masters and slaves; that the subject was put “beyond the 
power of legislation by the General Government, as well as 
the control of ecclesiastical bodies ;” that the Church should - 
refrain from agitating the subject; and that the mere holding 


190 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


of slaves in states where the laws did not permit emancipation 
was no barrier to the election and ordination of ministers.!2 
This explanation was also included in the “Pastoral Address”. 
It was insisted that the North had violated the rules of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church on slavery while the South had 
adhered strictly to their meaning and former interpretation.'% 


This Conference was severely censured by Elliott, who 
stressed the fact that no non-slaveholders were elected bishops 
while Capers and Paine, both of whom became bishops, 
were large slaveholders. He predicted that their election 
would mean that ministers and laymen would tend to become 
owners of slaves. The new bishops would become the boon 
companions of Calhoun, M’Duffie and Hammond, who would 
be “intoxicated with joy, in shaking hands with the new 
episcopacy’. Jurther, he asserted that, while the wording 
of the rule on slavery had not been changed, yet “the doc- 
trine” was “entirely expunged or repealed, to all intents and 
purposes, and” was “of no more force than if it never was 
in the Discipline’. According to Elliott, the whole section 
on slavery would have been expunged from the Discipline 
had it not been for the desire of the southern Church to hold 
Missouri and Kentucky conferences.14 That there was a 
measure of truth in his contention appears from the deter- 
mination of the latter conference that the section on slavery 
should not be altered.® 

Southern apologists believed that their Church acted from 
the highest and purest motives. The editor of the Southern 
Christian Advocate answered the charges made against Bish- 
ops Capers and Paine. The slaves of Capers were inherited 
from his father. Recalling the time when Capers was pro- 
posed as a candidate for bishop, he said: ‘But one thing is evi- 
dent, he is not more involved in slaveholding than he was in 
1836, when James B. Finley and many other northern men 
voted to promote him to the office of Bishop.”!® The freedom 
of southern Methodists from those in the North was reason 
for great rejoicing on the part of Bishop Andrew. “Southern 
Methodists now feel that their privileges are not held at the 
mercy of a wild and wayward fanaticism which makes its 
caprice and its power the rule of action, and which by mere 
courtesy allows slaveholders to continue mémbers of the 
Church.’’27 


The Trend of the Times 191 


Elliott’s charge that the Discipline was a dead letter on 
the question of slavery was unquestionably true in most 
southern conferences. The Christian Advocate and Journal 
asserted that the Discipline had been suppressed because 
it was “an incendiary publication.” But a southern editor 
replied that it had not been suppressed because it was incen- 
diary but rather because access to the negroes by mission- 
aries would otherwise be curtailed.1® Even from Kentucky, 
the most anti-slavery of all southern states, came advice 
to nullify the section on slavery. The writer was probably 
correct when he said there were “many pious Methodists, 
both North and South, who would not burn” him “as a 
heretic’ if he expressed his belief that the entire section in 
the Discipline on slavery should be removed.!® 

In 1850, the General Conference made a strong effort to 
remove the section dealing with slavery. But the vote was 
only 43 to 38 for removal and therefore failed of a consti- 
tutional majority.2° While the Church, South, had been 
unable to remove the section on slavery, it was predicted that 
the rule would not survive the next quadrennial conference.*? 
Without doubt, the attitude of Bishop Soule contributed 
towards this gradual change in sentiment. He considered 
the section “entirely inapplicable” and “inefficient” to accom- 
plish the removal of slavery; as an attempt to interfere with 
state and national laws; and as “detrimental to the best 
interests of the colored population of all the States where 
slavery exists.” 

That the southern Church was really interested in the 
welfare of slaves is beyond question. The southern press 
published a book entitled “Duties of Masters to Servants.”?8 
St. Louis conference declared that they had no sympathy for 
those ‘who either openly or clandestinely interfere with the 
civil relations between master and slave,’ but they also 
pledged themselves to ameliorate the condition of slaves and 
called attention to the great need of religious instruction for 
the negroes.*# Reports of what was actually accomplished 
and planned in at least one conference are still more con- 
vincing. In January, 1846, there was published a report 
of South Carolina conference on missions, in which it was 
revealed that, of the $14,250 raised for missions, $11,000 had 
been appropriated to the work among negroes of the con- 
ference.2> A year later, another important document show- 


192 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


ing the growth of missionary work among slaves and the 
interest of Methodists in the spiritual welfare of the slave 
population, had a prominent place in one of the Church 
publications. While not repudiating the right of southerners 
to hold slaves, it was a strong statement of the responsibility 
which South Carolina conference assumed for the dependent 
racers 

It might reasonably be expected that the northern Metho- 
dist Church would become as anti-slavery as the Wesleyan 
Methodists. Andrew had been deposed, ostensibly because 
of his connection with slavery, slight though it unquestionably 
was, and the consequent .effect upon the “itinerant system” 
of the Church. Southern Methodists had been condemned 
for forming a pro-slavery Church and seeking to destroy 
every vestige of opposition to their “institution” in the 
Discipline. Much was made of the fact that the first two 
bishops elected by southerners were slaveholders. However, 
though consistency might imply a new and more radical stand 
on the question, a survey of the attitude of northern con- 
ferences, leaders and newspapers is extremely disappointing 
to uncompromising opponents of slavery. 

Baltimore conference’s committee on slavery presented a 
report in which they commented upon the peculiar situation 
existing between the North and the South. They declared that 
non-slaveholding was a condition for admission of a candi- 
date into the conference and also a requirement for continu- 
ance in the ranks of the travelling ministry. They considered 
that local preachers in Virginia were protected by provisions 
of the Discipline, since the laws of that state did “not permit 
the emancipated slave to live within her bounds and enjoy 
.freedom.” The ownership of slaves was not a disqualification 
for church membership, and ‘slavery itself was not “neces- 
sarily and under all circumstances a sin.” This statement 
and three resolutions were tabled and never considered.?? 
Whether Elliott believed that this report had been accepted, 
or was giving a general impression of the attitude of the 
conference does not appear, but that the conference had not 
changed is evident from his statement that Baltimore con- 
ference was anti-slavery and anti-abolition as they had been 
for sixty years. “It has received no new lessons from 
abolitionists or pro-slavery men, but continues in its unflinch- 
ing posture, giving the world to see a model of excellency 


The Trend of the Times 193 


well worthy the imitation of Kentucky and Missouri.” As 
to the attitude of his section towards this sort of a stand, 
Elliott says that “the whole northwest are perfectly one with 
Baltimore, and they will continue one from generation to 
generation.” 28 

Other border conferences were entirely sympathetic with 
the position of Baltimore conference. Philadelphia confer- 
ence was not only opposed to the agitation of the slavery 
question,?® but elected a slaveholder to membership in the 
conference by a practically unanimous vote “in order to 
prevent that part of the Church going with the Church 
South.”8° In 1847 they declared that they were not aboli- 
tionists — that while they were “as much as ever convinced 
of the great evil of slavery,” they knew their “calling too 
well to interfere with matters not properly belonging to the 
Christian ministry.” They determined to remain, as they had 
previously been, opposed to slavery and abolitionism. They 
deprecated the agitation which had divided the Church and 
called attention to the fact that the rules of the two Methodist 
churches on slavery were exactly the same. “We cannot, 
therefore, see how we can be regarded as abolitionists, without 
the ministers of the Methodist Episcopal Church South 
being considered in the same light . . . We would also say, 
that there are members of this conference who have from 
time to time given you the most conclusive evidence, by their 
public acts and writings, that they are far from being 
abolitionists, and who with confidence and love abide in the 
conference of their early choice.”?! Garrison wrote that all 
candidates for orders in this conference who did not declare 
that they were not abolitionists were rejected.2* That he 
was a prejudiced witness cannot be denied, but that he spoke 
the truth in this instance is shown from the Pastoral Address 
of the conference to the people of their territory. They 
refuted the charge that they were abolitionists and pointed 
to their record of the preceding sixty years to protect them 
against such gross injustice. They also affirmed that they 
had for several years put to every candidate for admission 
into the conference the question, “Are you an abolitionist?” 
Unless he replied in the negative he was not received.*4 

That Ohio conference was opposed to abolitionists is 
evident from the fact that the Western Christian Advocate 
was so strongly against them.** Further to the westward, 


194 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


Illinois conference was also anti-abolition in its sentiments. 
Akers, a member of this body, declared that he was “thor- 
oughly satisfied that our Church should continue as hereto- 
fore, to oppose with equal discountenance the offensiveness 
both of abolitionism and pro-slaveryism.’’%* That his confer- 
ence would have supported him seems assured from the fact 
that they approved the work of the Colonization Society in 
1847,°> and from the strenuous opposition of Cartwright to 
abolition doctrines.*® 

The reactionary tendency in the northern Church is more 
clearly seen in the action of conferences further north. 
During the period under consideration, neither Troy nor 
Genesee conference “Minutes” show any resolution against 
slavery.27 In 1844 and 1845 Maine conference condemned 
slavery and the “secession” of southern conferences.38 But 
in 1846 they asserted that while an intelligent slaveholder 
could not be a Christian, they were opposed to the ultraism 
of both the North and the South.®® Providence conference 
in 1845 resolved: “That we have entire confidence in the 
‘ Anti-Slavery character of our brethren of the Baltimore 
Conference; that we greatly rejoice that they stand, where 
they have ever stood, upon true Methodist ground; . . . 
and that we pledge ourselves to abide by them, in their sup- 
port of Methodism, as transmitted to us by ‘the Fathers’.’’4° 

New Hampshire conference had formerly been one of 
the most radical in opposition to slavery. In 1845 they 
approved the action of the General Conference of 1844 on 
slavery and suggested that, if they had made a mistake, 
“it was rather by being too lenient than otherwise.” They 
declared that the decision of the Louisville Convention 
encouraged them to believe that the Methodist Episcopal 
Church would soon be freed from all connection with slavery. 
To non-slaveholders of the South they said: “We hope all 
our brethren of the south who are not involved in the sin 
of slaveholding will still adhere to the M. E. Church and 
her institutions, and thereby be co-workers with us in spread- 
ing scriptural holiness over the southern as well as these 
northern lands.”41 In 1846, the conference took the usual 
stand against slavery in the abstract, but also adopted the 
following equivocable resolution: “Resolved, That in using 
the terms ‘abolition’ and ‘abolitionism’, we do not mean to 
imply the least sympathy with the falsely so-called abolition- 


The Trend of the Times 195 


ism of the “Garrisonian party’, nor do we mean a system of 
persecution of slaveholders; nor do we imply that the mere 
legal relation of master and slave in all cases, must be sinful; 
but we do mean by these terms, as in the language of our 
excellent Discipline, that slavery is a ‘great evil’, and that 
it consequently ought to be abolished.”42 The next year they 
refused to fellowship any engaged in buying or selling slaves, 
or those “‘who, for their own profit, hold slaves and attempt 
to justify such practice on Christian principles.”43 In 1848, 
these ministers threatened political interference, if necessary, 
to prevent the further extension of slavery.** 

Only Vermont and New England conferences showed 
any signs of the former vigor. The first condemned slavery 
and opposed its further introduction into free territory. 
They also affirmed that “the slaves of this nation, by virtue 
of their humanity, are men, women, and children; and, 
therefore, they are not, never were, and never can be the 
property of other human beings.’* New England con- 
ference approved the action of their delegates in the Gen- 
eral Conference of 1844; demanded the “utter extirpation” 
of slavery from the Church; and said they would use their 
entire power to “restore our fellow men to the exercise 
and enjoyment of civil and religious liberty.”4® They 
opposed any plans to conciliate slaveholders and declared 
that, if a man were found to be possessed of slaves, the 
burden of proof should be placed on him to show that 
he was compelled to hold slaves, or else be charged with 
immorality.47 In 1847, they affirmed that emancipation was 
practicable in any state in the Union, and they therefore 
refused to “recognize or fellowship as’ a Christian any 
person who is guilty of this sin; nor can we acknowledge 
as a sister church any organization that clearly permits or 
sanctions this sin in its members.’’48 


For some time after the General Conference of 1844 
abolition lecturers had been at work in northern Ohio against 
the conservatism of several churches. Particularly did they 
condemn Erie conference for their attitude towards slavery. 
No one could successfully defend the conference and as a 
result many societies were distracted and members every- 
where were threatening to leave the Church. Face to face 
with such a catastrophe, ministers and people of the Western 
Reserve “felt the absolute necessity of changing the position 


196 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


of the conference on that subject.” Petitions and memorials 
were drafted and adopted by many groups and forwarded 
to the conference.*” 

The report of the conference Committee on Slavery was 
a compromise. They said the General Rule on Slavery 
forbade trafficking in slaves, but they nevertheless asked 
for an additional statement explaining its true meaning. 
They interpreted the rule to apply to any state, territory 
or district, where the laws permitted emancipation and al- 
lowed the liberated slave to enjoy his freedom. They dis- 
claimed all fellowship with the ultra-radical party in the 
North. After strong speeches for and against it by J. J. 
Steadman and Calvin Kingsley, respectively, the report 
seems to have been adopted, the vote on the second res- 
olution providing for a change of the rule on slavery being 
Go LON Zo ge? 

The Erie conference resolution asking for a change of 
the General Rule on Slavery was presented to the other 
conferences for their approval. The results indicate con- 
clusively that the Methodist Episcopal Church had no in- 
tention of becoming radical on this subject. Only the 
New England conference approved the proposals.59 Onei- 
da,®°1 Ohio,®? North Indiana,°?, and Illinois®+ conferences 
voted against it. Baltimore conference of 1846 voted unani- 
mously against the resolution.®® They decided to continue 
in the northern Church but at the same time issued an ulti- 
matum which read: “Resolved, 2. Vhat this conference dis- 
claim having any fellowship with abolitionism. On the 
contrary while it is determined to maintain its well known 
and established position, by keeping the travelling preach- 
ers composing its own body free from slavery, it is also 
determined not to hold connection with any ecclesiastical 
body that shall make non-slaveholding a condition of mem- 
bership in the Church, but to stand by and maintain the 
Discipline as it is.”©°® Providence conference recalled with 
gratitude the accomplishment of Baltimore conference in 
1844,5” and pledged themselves to continue in their former 
course which was cailed “the same conservative and true 
anti-slavery ground by which this Conference has already 
become distinguished.”5§ 

E. O. Haven®® asserted that “the first two General Con- 
ferences after the division - those of 1848 and 1852 - gave 


The Trend of the Times 197 


less attention to slavery than any other in the history of 
American Methodism.”®9 While this is unquestionably an 
exaggeration, yet the General Conference of 1848 did noth- 
ing which had for its purpose the destruction of slavery 
within the Church. No change was made in the General 
Rule on that subject. The delegates actually took steps to 
lessen the expenditures in Liberia by putting the burden 
upon the negroes themselves.®! Little interest was taken 
in the negroes in this country. When a petition from 
the colored members in Baltimore was presented, asking 
that ministers of their own race be permitted to have 
charge over all negro Methodists of the Church, and that 
“an annual conference of coloured preachers be organ- 
ized,” ®* the Conference declared that it was inexpedient to 
organize such a conference at that time. They asserted 
that the Discipline gave bishops the right to “employ co- 
loured preachers to travel and preach, where their services 
are judged necessary” if they had been “recommended by 
a quarterly conference.” 63 

The conservatism and apathy discovered in most north- 
ern conferences on the question of slavery was just as wide- 
spread in the columns of Methodist papers, While Zion’s 
Herald condemned the sale of a slave woman in Washing- 
ton, D. C.,64 yet the position of Baltimore conference in 
1846 was approved by this paper and also by the Christian 
Advocate and Journal.®® The attitude of the Pittsburg Chris- 
tian Advocate may be inferred from its refusal to publish 
resolutions adopted by some anti-slavery Methodists of 
Franklin, Ohio. These abolitionists condemned the slave 
trade from Africa and frankly stated their conviction that 
the sin of slavery was largely to be laid at the door of the 
Church. Northerners who refused to speak against slavery 
were called “soul-murderers.” They even opposed north- 
erners having fellowship with slaveholders.66 The Discip- 
line of the Church was considered to be against slavery 
and they therefore asserted that they would refuse to sup- 
port a minister who was pro-slavery or who did not speak 
out boldly against slavery.®? 

As has already been indicated, the Western Christian Ad- 
vocate approved the action of Baltimore conference and de- 
clared that the northwest was one with the border conference. 


198 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


While the editor could find time and space for articles of 
a nature pleasing to slaveholding conferences, yet his hand 
was against abolitionists at all times. In an article entitled 
“Abolitionism and the Methodist Episcopal Church,” he ex- 
pressed his unalterable opposition to the doctrines of radi- 
cals because they agitated the Church and State and _ be- 
cause they said that slavery was always sinful. He asser- 
ted that “the Methodist Episcopal Church had adopted no 
such doctrine, and she never will or can adopt it.’®8 To 
show that the Methodist Episcopal Church was not aboli- 
tionist, Elliott noted the fact that they had refused to fol- 
low Garrison, Scott and other abolitionists. Again the prac- 
tice of the Church for the preceding sixty years indicated the 
opposition of Methodists to ‘the radical demands. He 
maintained that the Church would continue this opposition 
to abolitionists in the future. He protested that aboli- 
tionists had not scared the North but that that section had 
determined to adhere to the anti-slavery principles held by 
Methodism before abolitionism was known.®8 Elliot later 
declared his belief that the work of abolitionists had re- 
tarded the progress of freedom fifty years.® 

Further indication that Elliott was conservative is to be 
found in his willingness to print accounts of Colonization 
Society meetings,“®° and also in his advice that radical 
methods to remove slavery should not be countenanced.?1 
And a correspondent, under the pen name “Illinois,” advised 
that southerners be permitted to “attend to their own busi- 
ness in their own way;” that the free states be “ ‘diligent in 
business, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord,’”’ and that “the 
friends of the colored man, both in the slave and free states, 
unite together, in one great effort, to release the negroes from 
spiritual bondage.” 7? 

A survey of the material presented shows conclusively 
that neither the South nor the North had changed on the 
question of slavery as a result of the General Conference of 
1844 and the consequent division of the Church. The 
South had always been decidedly conservative or pro- 
slavery. Slavery was not, under all circumstances, consid- 
ered a sin. The strife caused by the division of the Church 
had resulted in many pro-slavery expressions by souther- 
ners but their attitude was not changed but only intensi- 
fied by that event. Elliott and other northerners had at- 


The Trend of the Times 199 


tempted to fasten upon the South the reproach of support- 
ing a pro-slavery Church. That they held slaves was not de- 
nied by southerners, but many of them maintained that 
they were involuntary slaveholders and that the laws of the 
states in which they resided rendered emancipation impos- 
sible. Further, it was exceedingly difficult for northerners 
to prove from the Scriptures that slavery was wrong, and 
from the history of the Methodist Church that the pre- 
cedents were not on the side of the South.7% 

The southern Church had at least the virtue of con- 
sistency; the Methodist Episcopal Church could scarcely 
claim that much. For, while claiming to be anti-slavery, 
northerners retained slaveholders in the membership of the 
Church, and permitted them to hold offices in the local 
churches and preach in their pulpits.74 Garrison declared 
that, as a result, southerners had only contempt for the 
Church that was attempting “so to serve God as not to 
offend the devil.”’*4 The editor of the True Wesleyan pointed 
out that the rules of the two churches were exactly the same, 
and that the General Conference of 1848 had done nothing 
against slavery. On the contrary, they had voted to ex- 
tend their jurisdiction over Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky, 
Missouri and Arkansas so that there were eight slaveholding 
conferences in the northern Church.75 It may be claimed 
that both of these writers were antagonistic to the Methodist 
Episcopal Church. That is true, but admissions of northern 
conferences and leaders themselves prove the truth of their 
statements. 

Elliott made the charge that the Church, South, would have 
been still more pro-slavery if it had not been that leaders 
feared losing border conferences to the northern Church.7® 
But that the northern Church also feared losing this border 
territory is equally true. We have seen that conservatives in 
Erie conference acted only when radicals threatened to 
secede.‘* The threat of Baltimore conference to leave the 
Church if anything radical were done caused much anxiety 
and undoubtedly was responsible for the willingness of al- 
most every northern conference to compromise sufficiently 
to hold border conferences. Attacked from front and rear, 
the conservatives continued to flirt with both groups of 
radicals, with the odds in favor of the pro-slavery border. 


200 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


ye go bop 


In this chapter, the period covered is that from 1844 to 1850. 
Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, pp. 115-18. 
History of the Organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, p. 179. , 
Western Christian Advocate, Volume XI., p. 70, col. 4; August 16, 
1844. Many of these resolutions are printed in the papers of both 
churches. 

Western Christian Advocate, Volume XI. p. 70, col. 3; August 16, 
1844, 

The Liberator, Volume XIV., p. 157, col. 1; October 4, 1844. Of the 
slaves the preacher-author of the above statement says: ‘“‘They 
would be hung and shot down in the streets for their roguery, 
their insolence and their meanness if they had no masters to 
make them work, to provide them temporal and spiritua] blessings.” 
Western Christian Advocate, Volume XV., p. 2, col. 6; April 12, 
1848. 

Pittsburg Christian Advocate, Volume XI. p. 153, col. 5; October 
16, 1844. 

Sutton, The Methodist Church Property Case, pp. 125 ff. 


. The rule forbade: “Th buying and selling of men, women, and children, 


with an intention to enslave them.’”? (The Doctrines and Discipline of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 1846, p. 24). 


. This action was rescinded by the northern General Conference of 


1848. 
Journal of the General Conference of the M. E. Church, South, 
1846, pp. 74-5. 


. Ibid., pp. 110-12. 
. Western Christian Advocate, Volume XIII., p. 30, cols. 6-7; June 


5, 1846. Cf. Elliott, The Great Secession, cols. 558-9. 


. Southwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., No, 48; September 


26, 1845. 


. Pittsburg Christian Advocate, Volume XIIL, p. 177, cols. 3-4; June 


24, 1846. 


. Western Christian Advocate, Volume XIII., p. 14, col..3; May 8, 


1846. 


. Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume II (New Series), p. 54, cols. 


2-3; April 6, 1848. 


- Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XIV., No. 11; January 11, 


1850. The article is by B. T. Crouch. 


. Southern Christian Advocate, Volume XIV., p. 2, col. 4; June 7, 


1850. 
Nashville and Louisville Christian Advocate, Volume XIV., No. 23; 
April 5, 1850. 


. Pittsburg Christian Advocate, Volume XVI., p. 309, cols. 1-2; Sep- 


tember 25, 1850. 


. Nashville and Louisville Christian Advocate, Volume XV., No. 39; 


October 9, 1851. 


: Peery Christian Advocate, Volume XIII., No. 1; November 3, 


. Southwestern Christian Advocate, Volume X., No. 11; January 9, 


1846. 


. Quarterly Review, Volume I (1847), pp. 319-38. 
. Armstrong, The Old Baltimore Conference, pp. 270-80. Cf. Pitts- 


burg Christian Advocate, Volume XII., p. 43, col. 1; April 2, 1845. 


. Western Christian Advocate, Volume XII, p. 2, col. 3; April 18, 


1845. 


. Southwestern Christian Advocate, Volume X., No, 26; April 24, 1846. 
. The Liberator, Volume XVI., p. 98, col. 3; June 19, 1846. 
. Western Christian Advocate, Volume XIV., p. 6, col. 5; April 23, 


1847. J. P. Durbin, who was one of the most ardent defenders of 
the northern position in 1844, was chairman of the committee. 
The Liberator, Volume XVII., p. 183, col. 1; August 20, 1847. 


. We shall consider the attitude of this paper when we take up the 


relation of the press to slavery in the Church. 


The Trend of the Times | 201 


. Western Christian Advocate, Volume XII., p. 42, col. 5; June 27, 


1845. 


. Ibid., Volume XIV., p. 106, col. 6; October 15, 1847. 

. Cartwright, Autobiography, passim. 

. See the ‘‘Minutes’’ of these conferences for the years indicated. 

. For the record of 1844 see Western Christian Advocate, Volume 


XI., p. 90, col. 4; September 20, 1844. For that of 1845, see 
Minutes of the Maine Conference, 1845, pp. 13-14. 


. Minutes of the Maine Conference, 1846, pp. 6-7. 
. Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XVI., p. 112, col. 2; 


July 9, 1845. 
Minutes of the New Hampshire Conference, 1845, p. 13. 


. Ibid., 1846, p. 15. 

w/2bid., (1847, p: 12, 

. Ibid., 1848, pp. 14-15. 

. Minutes of the Vermont Conference, 1848, pp. 21-2. Lee, com- 


menting on these resolutions, said: ‘These Vermont Methodist 
preachers tell their Virginia Brethren that they are guilty of 
crimes that must be ‘regarded as an enormity for which perdi- 
tion itself has scarcely an adequate state of punishment! ! '” 
‘Richmond Christian Advocate. Volume II (New Series), p. 126. 
col. 5; August 10, 1848). The Vermont resolutions do not indicate 
that there is any justice in Lee’s statement. 


. Minutes of the New England Conference, 1845, pp. 12-13. 

. Ibid., 1846, p. 13. 

. Ibid., 1847, pp. 20-21. 

. Gregg, The History of Methodism in Erie Conference, Volume I1., 


pp. 277-82. 


. Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XI., No. 32; June 4, 1847. 
. Ibid., No. 43; August 20, 1847, 

. Ibid., Volume X., No. 49; October 2, 1846. 

. Herrick and Sweet, A History of the North Indiana Conference, p. 


17. The vote was 60 to 2. 


. Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XII., No. 3; November 12. 


1847. The vote was 82 to 2. 


. Armstrong, The Old Baltimore Conference, p. 285. 
. Ihid., p. 2838. Cf. The Liberator, Volume XVI., p. 81, col. 4; May 


22, 1846. Garrison declared that this resolution ‘‘might have been 
appropriately drawn up by Hope H. Statler, the great negro- 
trading Methodist of Baltimore.’’ 


. Western Christian Advocate, Volume XII., p, 11, col. 1; May 1 


1846. 


. The Liberator, Volume XVII., p. 1388, col. 1; August 20 1847. 
. Haven was afterwards a bishop of the northern Church, 

. Stratton (editor), Autobiography of Bishop Haven, p. 124. 

. Journal of Genera] Conference, 1848, p. 131. 


. Ibid., p. 42. 
. Ibid., .p. 130. 
. Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XVIII., p. 124, col, 2; 


. The Liberator, Volume XVI., p. 81, col. 4; May 22, 1846. 


August 4, 1847. 


. In 1848 it was reported that Bishops Andrew and Morris had taken 


the communion together at St. Louis. (Nashville Christian Advo- 
cate, Volume XIII., No. 2; November 10, 1848.) 


. The Liberator, Volume XVI., p. 117; July 17, 1846. 


4, 1844. 


. Western Christian Advocate, Volume XI., p. 98, cols. 4-5; October, 


-4, 1844. 


9. Ibid., p. 102, col. 3; October 11, 1844. 

. Ibid, Volume XII., p. 41, col. 4; June 27, 1845. 

. Ibid., Volume XITI., p.' 14, col. 5: May 8, 1846. 

. Ibid, Volume XIV., p. 50, col. 6; July 9, 1847, 

. The necessity of finding some other basis for the elimination of 


social wrongs was one of the important steps in the more recent 
interpretation of the New Testament. 


. The Liberator, Volume XVI., p. 135, col. 1; August 21, 1846. The 


document is taken from the Southern Christian Advocate and reads: 


202 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


Qa -j 


ba kor kA] 


“And now we wish the Methodist Episcopal Church of the 
United States North, joy in being as fully pro-slavery—so far as 
any and every vital principle is concerned—as the M. EB. Church 
South, is, has been, or ever will be. That ecclesiastical body is 
formally, truly, undeniably, irrevocably, connected with slavery. 
Slaveholders lead her classes, slaveholders kneel at her commun- 
ion tables, slaveholders fill her board of trustees; slaveholders occupy 
her very pulpits. Let New England and Ohio stand aghast, and let 
the daughters of eastern and western abolitionism gird themselves 
with sackcloth. Slaveholders occupy her pulpits, we repeat; for 
although the travelling preachers of the Baltimore Conference are 
not allowed to hold this sort of property, any of the Maryland or 
Virginia local preachers may, that choose so to do; and many of them 
are slaveholders. <A fine denoument, truly, is this whole tragedy of 
the General Conference of 1844. The M. E. Church has lost six- 
teen of her fairest provinces, and kept slavery sticking to her skirts 
after all. Her enemies. within and without will say that she 
endorses the doctrine that human beings may be regarded as 
property—held as chattels—and what answer can she give? She 
sees no moral guilt in the relation of master and slave, per se. 
Her official organs must again be muzzled. Expediency must 
strangle conscience, or abolitionists will leave the foul communion 
in thousands. The sliding scale of morality must be adopted again, 
and that course of action be regarded as virtuous and praise- 
worthy in a layman which would send a bishop to perdition. In 
short, the Baltimore Conference has conferred a better boon upon 
the Southern Church by going North, than if she had brought to 
our communion twice the amount of her present numbers, and ten 
times the amount of her talent. She keeps slavery in the mother 
Church, and makes every apology for northern Methodism, a 
champion of northern rights and principles.’’ 


. The Liberator, Volume XVIII., p. 154, cols. 3-4; September 29, 1848. 
. Supra, p. 190. 


Supra, pp. 195-6. 


CHAPTER XVI 


THE ENTERING WEDGE 


The six years following the General Conference of 1844 
had brought no perceptible change in the attitude of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church towards slavery. But the six 
years after 1850 were so filled with political discussions on 
this subject that the Church could not escape controversy. 
Slowly and with the greatest reluctance northern ministers 
enacted legislation which was an advance over any previous 
strictures against slavery. 

In 1850 Vermont conference declared that “for those who 
voluntarily sustain, extend, and perpetuate slavery,” they 
had no fellowship. They enthusiastically endorsed the anti- 
slavery sentiment of Zion’s Herald and commended the editor 
for his advocacy of abolition principles! Two years later, 
they showed their disgust for certain people in the North 
when they stated that for “the (so-called) anti-slavery which 
has long shown itself capable of talking against slavery, 
and acting in its favor, and for its perpetuity and extension, 
we have no fellowship.’ 

Maine conference adopted strong resolutions against slav- 
ery in 1850,3 and two years later were frank enough to 
admit that slavery was protected by the Nation and “tolerated 
by ecclesiastical usage” and that “men occupying the most 
important positions in the Church, are actually engaged in 
defending and sustaining this monstrous system.” They 
asserted that they would not submit to the demands of the 
slave power, but on the contrary would seek “by all wise 
and honorable means, the speedy emancipation of the enslaved 
millions of our own and other lands, and especially” would 
they endeavor “to remove the shame and reproach of Slavery 
from the Church of Christ.’ 

There was some sentiment for a change of the General 
Rule on Slavery. New England conference sought to exclude 
all voluntary slaveholders from the Church.5 Erie conference 
passed similar resolutions, but they also advocated providing 


203 


204 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


funds with which to buy the slaves and remove them to free 
states. In case the slaves could not be freed without injury 
to themselves, masters were to be urged to teach them to 
read the Bible and permit them to attend church. New 
Hampshire conference was more severe. After admitting 
that there were “slaveholders who are members of the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church,” and expressing concern lest the slave 
power should be strengthened in the Church, they asked for 
a change in the General Rule on Slavery so that it would 
forbid: “Buying or selling men, women, or children with an 
intention to enslave them or holding and treating them as 
property.”? 

Baltimore and Philadelphia conferences gave their vote 
against any change whatever in the Discipline on the subject 
of slavery.8 That these border conferences should take such 
action is not surprising, but that other conferences should. 
prove so utterly indifferent seems strange indeed. Six 
conferences took no action at all, either to show their dis- 
approval of slavery in the abstract, or to secure a change 
of the rule.9 The indifference of these conferences was 
equalled only by the lack of anti-slavery material in the 
official papers of the period. The Western Christian Advo- 
cate was the most radical. In its columns were found an 
appeal of colonizationists of Indiana for the purpose of rais- 
ing $2000;3° and an announcement of a three day anti- 
slavery convention to be held in Cincinnati. 

With such lethargy existing throughout most of the 
Church, it was futile to expect the General Conference of 
1852 to take any radical action against slavery. There was 
no lack of memorials, papers and speeches against slavery in 
the Church and in favor of a change of the Rule on 
Slavery.“ Calvin Kingsley seems to have been one of the 
most active anti-slavery advocates but he was unable to cope 
with the “strong conservative and semi-proslavery current.” 
His declaration that he would yet be heard was prophetic, 
but it was to be eight years before any change was made in 
the Chapter on Slavery.4® Petitions and papers were simply 
referred to the “Committee on Revisals” and no action was 
ever taken. 

It was at this Conference that certain districts of Pittsburg 
conference, lying within the bounds of Virginia, petitioned 
that they be joined to Western Virginia conference. The 


The Entering Wedge 205 


motives back of this memorial were probably indicated by 
the Wheeling (Virginia) Gazette, which declared that such a 
disposition of these districts would strengthen Western 
Virginia conference; unite these districts with a conference 
with which they were in complete sympathy ; make it possible 
to avoid the embarrassment of having an abolitionist sent 
as a preacher to Virginians; free a preacher from the North 
from inevitable difficulties arising from his attempts to 
instruct the slaves; and finally, join people of similar religious 
practices through trade on the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad.# 

Following the General Conference of 1852 the annual 
conferences showed a more radical tendency. As usual, 
New England conferences led the way. Maine conference 
of 1855 admitted that slavery existed in State and Church, 
and that the latter “must lead in this great reformatory 
movement, as she is to an alarming extent responsible for 
the existence of the evil.”15 They affirmed their belief that 
the Discipline, in spirit, was opposed to the system of slavery ; 
and they also voted against the formation of new conferences 
in slave states unless it was understood that slaveholders 
should be excluded from the Church Similar resolutions 
were adopted by New Hampshire and Vermont conferences.'® 

New England conference was also opposed to compromise 
with the slave power in Church and Nation. It was in 1854 
that they called to account leaders of both state and Church, 
and declared that they discovered “much in the conduct 
of leading men, both in the Church and State, which should 
awaken alarm and prompt us to the most decided action.” 
They especially condemned “any disposition to make converts 
to our denomination, or to recover territory from the M. E. 
Church, South, by softening the language of pure Methodism 
on the subject, or by concealing its proper meaning under 
false interpretations.’”?" So strong was this statement that 
the Christian Advocate and Journal refused to print the 
resolutions, on the ground that they were a reflection on 
the action of the General Conference of 1848.18 

The resolutions of conferences further west indicate an 
increasing opposition to slavery. Black River conference 
condemned the General Conference of 1852 when they said 
they had “witnessed with surprise, and deep regret, the 
masterly inactivity of our late General Conference on this 
subject.”!9 Three years later, they approved the opposition 


206 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


of Maine conference to the creation of any more conferences 
in slave states until there was a radical change in the attitude 
of the Church towards slavery.2® Oneida conference, besides 
opposing slavery, approved the movement to have the United 
States government recognize the independence of Liberia.”4 

Conferences of the “Old Northwest” were less radical. 
Cincinnati conference condemned, “after a long and spirited 
debate,” slaveholding for mercenary purposes and declared 
in favor of religious instruction for the slaves.2*_ North Ohio 
conference desired to exclude from the Church all those who 
held “slaves for the sake of gain.”?3 Wisconsin conference 
asked for a modification of the rule of the Church so that 
slaveholders would not be eligible to membership in the 
Church, “except in those instances in which, owing to the 
stringency of the slave laws, it may be found necessary to 
permit the legal relation to exist for the protection and 
support of the slave.”?4 The following year, 1853, they 
sought to interpret the rule on slavery so that “all traffic 
in human beings by members of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church”’*5 would be prohibited. In all these resolutions the 
involuntary slaveholder and the incompetent slave were care- 
fully protected. . 

A few conferences in this section showed a tendency 
towards radicalism. In 1853, North Indiana conference 
declared that those who held slaves for gain were sinners 
before God, and that no involuntary slaveholder should be 
admitted into the Church.2® Two years later, they asked 
the General Conference to determine the date when all slaves 
belonging to Methodists should be declared free.27 North- 
west Indiana conference added their condemnation of sla- 
very as it existed in the Church,?8 while Rock River confer- 
ence asked that the further extension or continuance of slav- 
ery in the Methodist Church be prohibited.?9 

With the approach of the General Conference of 1856, 
ministers attempted to formulate changes which they desired 
in the rule on slavery. The changes proposed may be divided 
into two classes—conservative and radical. Four conferences 
adopted resolutions providing for a rule which would still 
have permitted slavery to continue in the Church.?9 North 
Ohio conference’s resolution, asking that the rule forbid 
“The buying or selling of any human being, with an intention 


The Entering Wedge 207 


to enslave such person; or holding any person in slavery, 
where emancipation can be effected without injury to the 
slave,”’®1 is typical of all. Only Wisconsin conference stood 
for a rule which would absolutely exclude all slaveholders 
from the Church.?? 

The response of the conferences to these proposals indi- 
cates very clearly the real sentiments and the breadth of 
view of northern ministers. By an almost unanimous vote 
East Maine conference approved both the Erie and North 
Ohio resolutions.28 Three conferences concurred in the 
resolution of Troy conference.?# On the other hand, the 
radical Wisconsin proposal was approved by four confer- 
ences,*° which indicated a decidedly more aggressive spirit 
than had formerly obtained. 

But the opposition to these resolutions was such that it 
was impossible to secure action. Thus, while Southeastern 
Indiana conference declared that non-slaveholding should 
be a test of membership in the Church and pledged their 
delegates to the General Conference to work for such a 
change, they non-concurred in the resolutions of northern 
conferences.2® Ohio conference protested that they were 
“as much as ever” opposed to slavery; and favored legisla- 
tion to secure the rights of matrimony to slaves of Metho- 
dists, and to forbid Methodist members engaging in the 
domestic slave trade; but they defeated the Wisconsin 
resolution unanimously and the Erie and North Ohio pro- 
posals by substantial majorities.27 Both the Wisconsin and 
North Ohio resolutions were rejected, 28 to 2, by California 
conference.38 

Baltimore conference was unanimously opposed to the 
Troy resolutions.29 The position of the conference was 
declared to be the same as in 1846 and the threat of secession 
issued at that time was republished in 1855.49 These min- 
isters watched with the keenest interest and the greatest 
anxiety the action of western conferences. One of them 
wrote: “We sincerely desire that moderation shall prevail 
in the next General Conference, for, 1f extreme measures 
are adopted, a ruinous excitement and dismemberment must 
ensue.’’*1 

Likewise, other border conferences were opposed to any 
change of the rule on slavery. Philadelphia conference 
unanimously non-concurred in the Wisconsin plan,4? and 


e 


208 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


reprinted their statement of 1847 in which they said they 
could not rightly be accused of being abolitionists any more 
than members of the southern Methodist Church.*? Western 
Virginia conference refused to approve any of the resolutions 
asking for a change of the rule on slavery.44 Southern 
Illinois conference explained their non-concurrence by stat- 
ing: “In existing circumstances, we apprehend that any such 
changes in our general rules as are recommended in the 
afore-mentioned documents (the resolutions .of Troy, Wis- 
consin and other conferences) would operate injuriously on 
our brethren residing in slave territory, the larger portion 
of whom never had, and from conscientious motives never 
will, have any connection with Slavery.”* 

Not only were these “border conferences” opposed to 
any change in the rule on slavery, but also other conferences 
not so closely associated with the South. When Illinois 
conference voted in favor of the rule as it then was, they 
were vigorously denounced by Akers and Stone, two mem- 
bers of that body.**° And New York conference declared 
that the Discipline “maintains substantially the right ground 
in reference to this great evil, that we are satisfied with 
it . . . as it is, and that no change in this respect is 
desirable.’’4? | sed) 4 ee 

With sentiment of the conferences divided it was natural 
that a variety of opinions should be found in the official and 
semi-official publications of the northern Church. In 1852, 
Bishop Janes was reported to have invited a distinguished 
slaveholder into the pulpit. So friendly was the treatment 
of southern preachers by northern ministers that southerners 
related with pleasure the accounts of the excellent reception 
tendered them in the North.*® Bishop Scott wrote a two- 
column article in favor of colonization which depicted the 
fine climate and the excellent state of affairs in Liberia.*? 
Even Dr. Elliott, who had so bitterly condemned the southern 
Methodist Church, declared that it was impossible to exclude 
all slaveholders from the Church. He also affirmed that 
“those amendments that have been proposed, from the sug- 
gestions of the recent abolition school, have little in them 
calculated to benefit the slaves; while most of them would 
prove ruinous.’’5° 

One of the most constructive methods of securing a future 
reform is to educate the youth of today. But, before 


The Entering Wedge 209 


the General Conference of 1856, the Sunday School Journal 
of New York contained no teachings against slavery. Speak- 
ing of the general lack of anti-slavery teaching in the churches, 
Theodore Parker declared in 1854 that there were only 
a very few “true men” among the twenty-eight thousand 
Protestant ministers in the United States. Concerning the 
Methodist Church he asserted that there was not a single 
“Anti-Slavery Sunday-school” in the denomination, In ail 
the books and pamphlets there was “not a line showing that 
it is wicked to buy and sell a man, for whom, according to 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, Christ died.’ _ 

But while this condition undoubtedly obtained in the 
Sunday School publications, at least two papers were unre- 
mitting in their demands for a more anti-slavery position 
on the part of the northern Church. The Northwestern 
Christiam Advocate showed that slaveholding existed among 
northern ministers of slaveholding conferences as well as in 
the southern Methodist Church.°? Slavery had been too 
tenderly treated by the Church,®® and the editor called for 
drastic action on the subject.5# And Zi0n’s Herald under the 
editorship of Dr. Wise, contended earnestly for a more 
radical stand by the northern Church. 

The position of these two abolition editors is more clearly 
seen in their summaries of the probable action of the General. 
Conference of 1856 on the question of slavery. Dr. Wise 
said that, while the eighteen or more conferences which 
asked for a stronger rule on slavery were not agreed on what 
should be done, yet they did agree that “something ought to 
be done, and that something MUST be done at the next Gen- 
eral Conference.” He was sure that, when the memorials 
of these bodies were presented to the General Conference, 
they would “lead to something more than talk,’ and that 
changes would be made that would “convince the world that 
the Methodist Episcopal Church” was “earnestly seeking 
the extirpation of slavery from her communion.’ ®° 

Dr. Watson, editor of the Northwestern, was also hopeful 
of the outcome at the General Conference. He said that 
there were four conferences in favor of the rule as it stood ;°8 
two for “a change without an improvement’’,°’ seven for a 
new rule;>® while fifteen preferred only some slight change 
in the chapter on slavery.5® Speaking of the situation in 
August, 1855, he said: “Of the ninety delegates to the next 


210 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


General Conference already elected, only twenty-four were 
in the last General Conference, and a large majority—if not 
three-fourths — of those re-elected, are known to be pro- 
gressive, anti-slavery men. Brethren of the Northwest, what 
think you of the prospect? Shall voluntary slaveholding 
be longer tolerated in the M. E. Church? Let us be firm. 
‘Doughfaceism’ may defeat us, the devil cannot.” 6° 

But Watson did not produce all the facts in the case, for 
Philadelphia and Baltimore conferences were not included 
in his calculations. Further, the attitude of Missouri, Ken- 
tucky, Arkansas, Southern Illinois, Southeastern Indiana 
and California conferences was not encouraging. He also 
omitted to say that many conferences refused to accept the 
recommendations of other conferences so that there was not 
a three-fourths majority of all the ministers voting in favor 
of any particular change. That there was no reason for 
the excessive optimism of Watson appears from the action 
of New England conference in April, 1856. It is true that 
they condemned slavery and favored excluding all slave- 
holders from the Church. They even censured the Tract 
Committee for removing all anti-slavery tracts from their 
list of publications. But Elliott wrote of the delegates 
selected by this conference: “Three of these delegates are 
“decidedly conservative, and opposed to the ultra-abolition 
school, which, up to this time, has afflicted the New England 
churches, and has greatly impeded both the cause of religion 
and the cause of human liberty; and we have no hesitancy 
in declariag as our settled judgment, that the day of this 
extravagance is nearly over. Both liberty and religion will 
be the gainers; especially will the “Churches have rest,’ 
and will be more particularly engaged in promoting the salva- 
tion of men.”61 

It was Matlack, editor of the True Wesleyan, who esti- 
mated most accurately the sentiment of the northern Church. 
In his opinion, the few anti-slavery men would make a vain 
attempt to destroy slavery. The debate would last several 
days and the abolition program would be defeated by a few 
votes. Then, to keep the abolitionists from leaving the 
Church, conservatives would present a meaningless resolution 
against slavery which would accomplish nothing. This would 
be accepted. ‘And the North, making a virtue of necessity, 
will go home rejoicing in the fact that for the first, in more 


The Entering Wedge 211 


than. 50 years some specific action has been taken adverse 
to slavery.” Wise believed that Matlack was mistaken and 
said he was convinced that the General Conference would 
take some decisive action. Watson agreed. “We are very 
slow to believe that the next General Conference will evince 
before the world, that doughfaced truculency, which the 
present congress in its incipiency is certainly doing.’ 

The General Conference convened in Indianapolis. In 
the “Address” of the bishops, the rule on slavery was 
explained to mean that slaves could not be bought or sold; 
that officials and ministers were forbidden to hold slaves 
where the state laws permitted emancipation ; and that slavery 
wes “a great evil’’.6 In view of the fact that none of the 
proposed changes in the rule had received the constitutional 
three-fourths vote of the ministers, the bishops doubted 
whether “any measure equivalent to a change in the General 
Rules” could “be constitutionally adopted without the con- 
currence of the Annual Conferences.”®* Janes, who read the 
address, says that it was “very severely criticised by the 
ultra party and strongly denounced.’’65 

The action of the Conference on the work among the 
colored people indicates the attitude of the Church towards 
the negroes. Methodists were urged to support a special 
institution in Ohio which should educate negroes for mission- 
ary work in Africa.°6 The Committee on Colored Mem- 
bers®? recommended a change in the section of the Discipline 
dealing with negroes in the Church, As it stood after 1856 
the Discipline permitted negro preachers and members 
all the rights of white ministers and members — 
“where the usages of the country” did “not forbid it.” The 
presiding elder was given permission to hold quarterly con- 
ferences for negroes whenever he considered it “expedient.” 
Further, bishops and presiding elders were authorized to 
“employ colored preachers to travel and preach” whenever 
it was considered “necessary”. No negro could be used for 
this purpose without the recommendation of a quarterly 
conference. Finally, bishops were permitted to hold a con- 
ference for colored local preachers for the purpose of consid- 
ering the work among negroes. But the presiding elder of 
the district in which the conference was held must be present 
and the conference itself must be authorized by an annual 


2i2 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


conference and considered by the bishops to be “practicable 
and expedient.’’6® 

The changing of the Rule on Slavery met with the bitterest 
opposition. All memorials, petitions and papers of every 
kind on this subject were referred to a special committee. 
The “Wisconsin Rule” was the only one considered, but it 
did not have the support of a majority of the committee. 
Two reports were therefore presented to the Conference, 
the minority report recommending a radical change while 
the conservative recommendation was opposed to any effective 
alteration.®® An exciting debate ensued and Bishop Janes 
feared that the radicals might be successful.” The radical 
minority report was accepted, 146 to 55; but when the Ayes 
and Nays were called for, the vote failed of the constitutional 
two-thirds majority, 122 to 95.7 


Two of the leading figures in this debate were Abel Stevens 
for the conservatives and Daniel Wise for the radicals. Both 
had been editors of Zion’s Herald, which had been made the 
medium of a bitter controversy between them.*? The Con- 
ference elected Stevens editor of the official Christian Advo- 
cate and Journal, while Wise was given charge of the Sunday 
School publications.“* The conservative attitude of the Con- 
ference was further indicated in the defeat of William 
Hosmer as editor of the Northern Christian Advocate. 
Hosmer and Hibbard, the successful candidate, were both 
ultra-abolitionists but the latter was considered the more 
temperate of the two. The fact that Hibbard had the 
support of the conservative Baltimore and New York con- 
ference delegations led to the charge that these and other 
conferences had “entered into a concerted scheme” to defeat 
abolitionists.”* 

At only two points were abolitionists successful. It will 
be remembered that there was considerable agitation over the 
fact that Sunday School publications and the Tract Society 
had published nothing which implied a censure of slavery. 
But Wise, who had been an associate of Garrison, was 
chosen editor of Sunday School publications, and the future 
was therefore full of promise for the propagation of anti- 
slavery doctrines.“* And the Tract Committee of the Con- 
ference proposed the following resolution which was adopted : 
“That the Book Agents and Tract Secretary be, and they 


The Entering Wedge 213 


hereby are, instructed to publish, in tract form, such anti- 
slavery matter as the subject of slavery may demand, 
including Mr. Wesley’s Thoughts on Slavery.” 

In the “Pastoral Address” which was prepared by a com- 
mittee of the delegates, it was maintained that the Methodist 
Church had always been anti-slavery and that their attitude 
was unchanged. In proof of their statement that they were 
considered an anti-slavery Church they cited the fact that 
one conference had been compelled by a mob to change the 
place of meeting. They also stated that the Conference 
debates had shown conclusively that none of the delegates 
“entertained pro-slavery sentiments” and that there was 
“little or no mercenary slaveholding” in the denomination. 
As a reason for the conservative action of the General 
Conference on the slavery issue they said: ‘And the effect of 
such action upon the interests of the border conferences, 
probably alone prevented a constitutional majority from 
voting to recommend a change of our General Rule on the 
subject of slavery.” Finally, they recommended: “On this 
subject be temperate and firm; resisting evil, not with carnal 
weapons, but with immutable truth— ‘weapons that are 
mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds’.”’?® 


There were two groups in the Church who believed that 
the Conference had done nothing of consequence on the 
question of slavery. Cartwright, who represented the con- 
servative element, says that they had reason to expect that, 
as a result of the political turmoil, they would have trouble 
in the General Conference on this subject. This was espec- 
ially true since many of the “preachers who were strongly 
opposed to slavery, had suffered themselves to become too 
excited by designing demagogues.”’ He believed that these 
radicals cared not at all for the welfare of the negro but 
only for position and power. “But on this, and almost all 
other long-tried and prosperous regulations of our beloved 
rules and disciplinary regulations, there were found aboard 
the old ship ministers enough to keep the old, well-tried 
vessel well trimmed, and leaving in the distance these inno- 
vators and spoilers of ancient Methodism. So may it ever 
be.’77 That Cartwright probably had in mind the effect 
such radical action would have on the work of the northern 
Church among the negroes appears from his plea: “Let 
moral suasion be used to the last degree for the sake of 


214 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


the salvation of the slaveholders and the salvation of the 
slaves. Let us not take a course that will cut off the Gospel 
from them, and deliver them over to the uncovenanted 
mercies of God, or the anathemas of the devil.’’78 

The second group condemned the General Conference 
because they had not done more against slavery, and they 
were particularly incensed over the election of Hibbard. 
Michigan conference endorsed the unsuccessful stand of the 
Conference majority,’® which was an implied censure because 
no radical stand had been taken by the Conference as a 
whole. The quarterly conference of Harrisonville Circuit, 
Northwest Indiana conferénce, passed resolutions in which 
they declared that they were “opposed to the retention of 
a single slaveholder” in the Chufch and condemned the 
General Conference for their conservatism.2° One writer 
asserted that the lack of legislation by the General Conference 
on slavery was due to the absence of “backbone” on the part 
of northern delegates.®1 


The controversy over the election of Hibbard centered in 
the patronizing conferences of that paper. Genesee confer- 
ence deprecated the attempt to remove Hibbard and gave him 
their endorsement. Black River conference took no official 
action in this question. But a convention of ministers from 
five patronizing conferences met at Syracuse, New York 
and formed the “Central New York Publishing Association” 
with a capital stock of $20,000. It was held that Hibbard 
should resign and that if he refused to do so they should 
publish another paper to be called the “Central New York 
Independent.” The election of Hibbard was considered 
most unfortunate. Thus, Dr. Bowen, an anti-slavery advo- 
cate, declared that slavery was triumphant in both State and 
Church, He affirmed that the movements of the Methodist 
Church had “been retrogade for the last four years. Four 
years ago the slaveholders, or their apologists, dare not look 
us in the face at Boston. They would hardly venture to 
admit that they were slaveholders. Everything was done by 
management. But at Indianapolis they met us in the open 
field and whipped us in a fair fight. The Northern Con- 
ferences are conquered territory. And this was done in an 
open field fight. The South can have just as many go-over- 
every-time-they-need-men as will carry the point. No meas- 
ure fails for want of men . . . The General Conference has 


The Entering Wedge 235 


tied our hands. The shadow has gone back ten degrees on 
the dial. And yet I expected it.”%* 


But while Cartwright and the radicals believed that the 
General Conference had either marked time or else actually 
retreated in the presence of the slave power, there were many 
others who, while recognizing that the action of the General 
Conference fell short of their hopes, yet saw that abolitionists 
had gained ground. At least seven conferences adopted resolu- 
tions in which they endorsed the republishing of anti-slavery 
books and tracts, and pledged themselves to circulate them 
as much as possible.*4 


A beginning had been made towards eliminating slavery 
from the Methodist Episcopal Church. It is true that only 
on two propositions—the publication of anti-slavery tracts 
and the election of an abolitionist as editor of Sunday 
School publications—were the radicals successful. But com- 
pared with the action of the General Conference of 1836 that 
of 1856 seems extreme indeed. In 1836, there were only four- 
teen abolition delegates to the General Conference; in 1856, 
there were enough to constitute a substantial majority. In 
1836, two members of the Conference attended an anti- 
slavery meeting and were roughly handled in consequence ; 
twenty years later, many delegates attended “a _ public 
political anti-slavery meeting” without the least danger of 
censure.®> And while it is true that the bishops of both 1836 
and 1856 were opposed to radicalism in the Church, yet the . 
use of anti-slavery literature by thousands of young people 
a to powerfully affect the counsels of ‘both Church and 

tate. 


Minutes of the Vermont Conference, 1850, pp. 18-19. 

Ibid: .1852; p.'20: 

Minutes of the Maine Conference, 1850, p. 12. 

Ibid., 1852, p. 13. 

Minutes of the New England Conference, 1852, pp. 20-21. As in 

‘botertaan conference, the rule was to affect voluntary slaveholders 

only. 

6. Fradenburgh, History of the Erie Conference, Volume I1., p. 516. 
The year was 1851. 

7. Minutes of the New Hampshire Conference, 1852, pp. 18-19. This 
proposed rule was similar to that adopted by the Christmas Con- 
ference of 1784 and other early General Conferences. 

Nashville and Louisville Christian Advocate, Volume XV., No. 1; 
January 9, 1851. 

9. These were East Maine, Ohio, North Ohio, North Indiana, Michi- 

aa and Illinois conferences. The Minutes show no reports on 

slavery. 


Ovih eRe 


216 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


14. 


15. 
16. 


Li. 


18. 


. Western Christian Advocate, Volume XVII., p. 126, col. 7; August 


7, 1850. 


. Ibid., Volume XIX., p. 62, col. 6; April 21, 1852. 
. Journal of General Conference, 1852, pp. 16, 22, 23, 35, 87, 38, 39, 


40, 47, 54, 55, 61, 68, 69, 73, 74, 108. 


. Bennett, History of Methodism in Wisconsin, p. 187. It is inter- 


esting to note that a few years before Kingsley had been decidedly 
conservative. See Supra, p. 196. 

Quoted in The Liberator, Volume XXII., p. 81, cols. 4-5; May 21, 
1852. So far as can be determined nothing was done with this 
petition. The item is interesting as showing a tendency which 
existed from even an earlier date, for the western Virginia coun- 
ties to separate from the eastern. 

Minutes of the Maine Conference, 1855, p. 12. Cf. Northwestern 
Christian Advocate, Volume III., p. 99, col. 1; June 20, 1855. 
Minutes of the New Hampshire Conference, 18538, p. 10. Cf. Nash- 
ville and Louisville Christian Advocate, Volume XVIII., June 1, 
1854 and Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume III, p. 138, 
col. 6; August 29, 1855. For Vermont conference see the Minutes 
LOL LSHas Dele se ana LDIG WwilS50.) Dakit. 

Minutes of the New England Conference, 1854, pp. 29-31. Cf, Ibid., 
1853, p. 23; Ibid., 1856, pp. 22-3; and Northwestern Christian Ad- 
vocate, Volume ITI., p. 99, col. 1; June 20, 1855. 

Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXV., p. 99, col. 5; 
June 14, 1854. In the same volume (p. 205, cols. 5-6) is a state- 
ment which may furnish the reason for the attitude of the New 
York paper. In 1854, Captain Smith was convicted of slave- 
trading by a New York Court. He asserted that twenty vessels 
had gone out from New York during that year and that thirty-five 
had sailed the previous year for the purpose of carrying slaves, 
and that New York was ‘the chief port of the world for the slave 
trade.’’ This indicates something of the attitude of New York 
towards slavery. It is possible that the Methodist editor was 
affected by the indifference of people towards this evil and was 
consequently impatient when abolition sentiments were expressed. 


. Nashville and Louisville Christian Advocate, Volume XVI., Sep- 


tember 2, 1852. 


. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume III., p. 98, col. 5; June 


20, 1855. 


. Ibid., Volume I., p. 127, col. 2; August 10, 1853. Cf. Ibid., Volume 


II., p. 129, col. 2; August 16, 1854 and Ibid., Volume III., p. 130, 
col. 7; August 15, 1855. 


. Ibid., Volume III, p. 170, col. 7; October 24, 1855. 

- Minutes of the North Ohio Conference, 1853, p. 33. 

. Bennett, History of Methodism in Wisconsin, p. 132. 

. kbid., p. 139. 

. Minutes of the North Indiana Conference, 1853, pp. 15-16 

. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume III., p. 69, col. 3; May 


2, 1855. 


mLbide D7. VIL, coll2: July 18) 28565. 
. Minutes of the Rock River Conference, 1855, pp. 13-14. 
. Those besides North Ohio were: 


(1) Troy—see Minutes of Troy Conference, 1854, pp. 44-5. 

(2) Erie—see Fradenburgh, History of the Erie Conference, Volume 
II., pp. 517-18. 

(3) paciee River—see Minutes of the Rock River Conference, 1854, 
p. 26. 


. Minutes of the North Ohio Conference, 1854, p. 35. 
. Bennett, History of Methodism in Wisconsin, p. 148. The sug- 


gested rule would have forbidden “The buying, selling, or holding a haman 
being as a slave.”’ 


. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume III, p. 188, col. 6; 


August 29, 1855. 


34, 


Co 


oT 


The Entering Wedge tube 


These were as follows: 

(1) New Hampshire—see Nashville and Louisville Christian Advo- 
cate, Volume XVIII., June 1, 1854. The vote was 50 to 6. 

(2) East Genesee—see Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXI., 
p. 142, col. 6; September 6, 1854. 

(3) New England—see Minutes of the New England Conference, 
1854, pp. 29-31. 


. These were: 


(1) Vermont—see Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume III., 
p. 1388, col. 6; August 29, 1855. 

(2) Black River—see Ibid., p. 98, col. 5; June 20, 1855. 

(3) East Genesee—see Ibid., p. 138, col. 7; August 29, 1855. 

(4) Michigan—see Minutes of the Michigan Conference, 1855, pp. 35-6. 
apt Christian Advocate, Volume XXII, p. 161, col. 3; October 

10, ‘ 


. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume III., p. 154, col.2; Sep- 


tember 26, 1855. 


~ Lbid., Dp: 110; cols*?/4-5; July/11)' 1855; 
. Nashville and Louisville Christian Advocate, Volume XVIII., April 


18, 1854. Commenting on this conference, the Northern Christian Advocate 
said: ‘If Baltimore Conference, with Fugitive Slave laws and 
Nebraska bills pouring down upon it, is disposed to hold on to 
this rotten plank, we are quite sure that many other conferences 
will not.’’ 


. Supra, p. 196. See also, Armstrong, The Old Baltimore Confer- 


ence, p. 302; and Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume II, 
p. 81, col. 3; May 238, 1855. 


. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume TL) p.) 151, col, 3; Sep- 


tember 19, 1855. 


. Ibid., p. 70, col. 56; May 2, 1855. 
. Ibid., p. 81, col. 3; May 23, 1855. See also, Supra, p. 193 for 


the conference statement. 


. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume III., p. 99, col. 1; June 


20, 1855. 


. Minutes of the Southern Illinois Conference, 1855, p. 20. 
. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume To p. 181, cols. 1 and 


7; November 14, 1855. 


; Ibid., p. 188, col. 63) August 29, 1855. 
. The Liberator, Volume XXIII., p. 159, col. 2; October 7, 1853. 
| Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume I., p. 165, cols. 1-3; 


October 19, 1853. 


. Methodist Quarterly Review, Volume XXXVII., p. 320 (1855). 
. Old South Leaflets, Volume IV., No. 80, p. 11. ‘This is an extract 


from a sermon by Parker on ‘‘The Dangers of Slavery’’, delivered. 
in Music Hall, Boston, Sunday, July 2, 1854. His statement in 
regard to the Methodists is as follows: “In 1853 the Episcopal 
Methodists had 9,488 Sunday Schools; 102,732 Sunday School 
teachers; 525,008 scholars. There is not an Anti-slavery Sunday- 
school in the compass of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Last. 
year, in New York, they issued on an average, two thousand 
bound volumes every day in the year, not a line against Slavery 
in them. They printed also two thousand pamphlets every day; 
there is not a line in them all against Slavery. They printed 
more than two hundred and forty million pages of Sunday-school 
books, not a line against Slavery in them all; not a line showing 
that it is wicked to buy and sell a man, for whom, according 
to the Methodist Episcopal Church, Christ died.” 


. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume III., p. 13, cols. 6-7; 


January 24, 1855. 


. Ibid., col. 4. 
. Ibid., p. 198, cols. 4-6; December 12, 1855. 
. Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXI., p. 190, col. 7; Novem- 


ber 29, 1854. His statement follows: ‘“‘At least eighteen - 
probably more than twenty - out of the thirty-eight conferences 
have taken ground in favor of some stronger action against. 


218 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


85. 


slavery than is now provided for in the Discipline. They do not 
agree as to what precise mode of action is best; but they do 
agree that something ought to be done, and that something 
MUST be done at the next General Conference, to compel our 
brethren to more vigorous efforts for the extirpation of slavery. 
When these resolutions are presented, as we doubt not they will 
be, at the next General Conference, by more than one hundred 
delegates elected on anti-slavery grounds, they will lead to some- 
thing more than talk. They will be reproduced in some prudent, 
judicious, effectual disciplinary changes which will convince the 
world that the Methodist Episcopal Church is earnestly seeking 
the extirpation of slavery from her communion.” 


. New York, New York East, Western Virginia, and Mlinois. 
. Ohio and Southern Illinois. 
. New Hampshire, Vermont, East Maine, Erie, Wisconsin, North 


Ohio, and North Indiana. 


. Troy, California, Maine, Black River, Pittsburg, Wyoming, Onieda, 


East Genesee, North Indiana, Michigan, Rock River, Indiana, Cin- 
cinnati, Iowa and Southeast Indiana. 


. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume III., p. 138, col. 7; Au- 


gust 29, 1855. 


. Ibid., Volume IV., p. 70, col. 7; April 30, 1856. 

. Ibid., Volume III., p. 202, col. 4; December 19, 1855. 

. Methodist Quarterly Review, Volume XXXI., p. 464; July, 1857. 
. Ridgeway, The Life of Bishop Janes, p, 196. Cf. Marlay, Life of 


Bishop Morris, pp. 274-5. 


. Ridgeway, The Life of Bishop Janes, p. 197. 

. Journal of General Conference, 1856, p. 104. 

. Ibid., pp. 3-5. 

. Journal of General Conference, 1856, p. 183. 

. Bennett, History of Methodism in Wisconsin, pp. 159-60. 
. Ridgeway, Life of Bishop Janes, p. 199. 


Journal of General Conference, 1856, pp. 126-7. 


. Stratton (editor) Autobiography of Bishop Haven, pp. 124-5. 
. Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XX., July 24, 1856. 
. The Liberator, Volume XXXI., p. 52, col. 4; March 29, 1861. This 


information is from a letter written by Gilbert Haven to Garrison. 


. Journal of General Conference, 1856, p.150. : 
. Methodist Quarterly Review. Volume XXXI., p. 461; July, 1857. 
. Cartwright, Autobiography, p. 503. 

wODIGs) Ds, 29! 

. Minutes of the Michigan Conference, 1856, p. ‘ 

. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IV., p, 146, col. 2; Sep- 


26 
tember 10, 1856. 


. Ibid., p. 141, col. 4; September 3, 1856. 

. Minutes of the Genesee Conference, 1856, p. 25. 

. Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XX., August 14, 1856. 

. For the action of the various conferences see the following: 


(1) Bennett, History of Methodism in Wisconsin, p. 163. 

(2) Fradenburgh, History of the Erie Conference, Volume IL., p. 519. 
(3) Minutes of the Delaware (Ohio) Conference, 1857, pp. 27-8. 

(4) Minutes of the Maine Conference, 1857, p. 10. 

(5) Minutes of the Detroit Conference, 1856, p. 27. 

(6) Minutes of the Rock River Conference, 1856, pp. 22-3. 

(7) Minutes of the New England Conference, 1856, pp. 22-3, 29-39. 
Bennett, History of Methodism in Wisconsin, p. 160. 


CHAPTER XVII 


THE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1860 


When annual conferences considered the question of 
slavery within the Methodist Episcopal Church during the 
quadrennium following the General Conference of 1856, they 
generally had in mind the action which might be taken by 
the Conference of 1860. In the first years of this period 
abolition conferences sought to arouse anti-slavery conviction 
and spread anti-slavery doctrines among both ministers and 
people. During the years immediately preceding the General 
Conference of 1860, abolitionists attempted to secure an 
effective alteration of the General Rule on Slavery so that 
this evil might be wholly excluded from the Church. .On 
the other hand, border conferences earnestly entreated north- 
ern conferences to make no change in the rule as it then 
appeared in the Discipline. 

To recite the story of abolition conferences during this 
period would be but a repetition of the account of previous 
years. In some instances, there seemed to be a tendency in 
New England and other northern conferences to qualify 
their condemnation of slavery so that border conferences 
would not be forced out of the Church. But, on the whole, 
conferences to the extreme north were very strongly opposed 
to slaveholding within the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
Particular attention was given to the attitude of Methodist 
papers in anti-slavery territory. All publications except the 
Christian Advocate and Journal were heartily commended 
for their stand against slavery. This official paper, however, 
which had stood for three decades as the defender of conser- 
vatives against abolitionists, was now execrated because it 
did not assume the radical point of view. The resolution of 
New England conference that the Advocate did “not truly 
represent the law of our church; as embodied in the Disci- 
pline, the views of the majority of the last General Confer- 
ence, or anti-slavery sentiment demanded by every obligation 


219 


220 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


of Christianity and humanity in the present dominant posi- 
tion of the slave power,’ was typical of statements of other 
abolition conferences. 


In only one section which had previously been favorable 
to the South was there a change to a more radical position. 
Beginning with 1858, New York conference declared that 
they were opposed to slavery and took pleasure in “pointing 
with just pride” to the “consistent” stand which the Metho- 
dist Church had ever taken against slavery, “regarding it as 
an evil, for the extirpation of which all wise and prudent 
means” were to be used.? That these ministers were much 
divided on the subject 1s evident from the resolution in favor 
of colonizing negroes in Africa, which had resulted in the 
“foundation of a Christian Republic,” which they believed 
had “done more for the elevation of the African race than all 
other mere human agencies combined,’’® 


New York East conference also became more radically 
opposed to slavery in the Church. In 1857, the first anti- 
slavery society was formed.* The following year the confer- 
ence approved the language of the Church in 1784, by which 
it was declared that slaveholding was contrary to the Golden 
Rule, the inalienable rights of man and the principles of the 
American Revolution, and that it was their duty to seek 
its extirpation from the Church. They also believed it to 
be their duty to instruct the Church by means of the press 
and pulpit until the high standards of early Methodists 
were attained. They favored the emancipation of slaves as 
“the requirement of righteousness.”? 


The real strength of the conservative party was to be 
found in conferences of the “Old Northwest” and on the 
border. Peoria conference approved the work of the Colo- 
nization Society, assigning as reasons for their action that 
the slave trade would be arrested and Christianity introduced 
into Africa, which was compared to America as a refuge for 
the oppressed.® Illinois conference was also extremely con- 
servative,’ while the only action of Southern Illinois confer- 
ence in behalf of negroes was to favor the establishment of 
a school for free colored people to be known as Wilberforce 
University.2 That ministers of Southeastern Indiana confer- 
ence were conservative seems clear from their resolution 


The General Conference of 1860 221 


“That we will not meddle with the legal relations of master 
and slave; but that we will never cease our opposition to the 
immoralities of the system till slavery is ‘extirpated.’ ””? 

In this section of the country, Ohio and Delaware confer- 
ences were the most conservative. The former rejoiced “in 
the fact that the M. E. Church has, by her policy and spirit, 
ever borne consistent testimony against every alliance with it, 
and ever had in view its final extirpation.”!° The informa- 
tion of this conference seems to have been very deficient, but 
that of the Delaware conference committee was even more 
startling. Their resolution ‘““That we rejoice in the fact that 
the Methodist Episcopal Church has ever been anti-slavery ; 
that from her very commencement she raised her voice 
against this crying evil, and all along she has spoken in 
thunder tones from the pulpit and the press’!+ would be 
amusing if it were not such a perversion of the truth. The 
“thunder tones” of the pulpit and press for half a century 
had sounded more like the clang of a cat’s paw than the 
voice of an organization in deadly earnest. 

Border conferences were very much averse to any change 
in the sentiment of the Church on slavery, and sought to 
protect slaveholding in states where they could not be freed 
according to the laws. Kentucky conference maintained that 
they had no disposition to continue slavery in the Church 
“further than is necessary on account of the difficulties 
attending emancipation,” and said that they anxiously awaited 
“the openings of Providence for its removal in a just, peace- 
ful, and Christian manner.” They declared, however, that 
when earlier leaders pronounced in favor of the destruction 
of slavery “they did not intend any interference with the 
rights of those legally connected with the institution.’’!? 


On the eve of the General Conference of 1860, Western 
Virginia conference stated their position through a Pastoral 
Address and a letter from a member of that body.4® They 
protested against substituting mobs for laws and courts and 
affirmed their allegiance to the state. The anonymous writer 
declared that enemies of the northern Church, and especially 
the Richmond Christian Advocate, had attempted to show 
that the members of the conference were disloyal. Through 
their pastoral letter they had sought to defend themselves 
against the charges of being pro-slavery, which were pre- 
ferred by their enemies in the North; and the charges of 


222 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


being abolitionists, which came from the South. As “Virgin- 
ius” expressed it: ‘““We occupy the unenviable position of 
being midway between two fires ; but the Southern proslavery 
fire is nearest to us, and against this our chief efforts are 
needed. While you charge us with being proslavery, they 
declare we are abolitionists.’ Both charges were denied with 
emphasis. The conference was composed of “anti-slavery 
men of the old school—to which belonged our ecclesiastical 
fathers of the state, Washington, Jefferson, Monroe, etc.” 
They regarded slavery as an evil to be gotten rid of but they 
were opposed to unlawful methods to obtain their ends. In 
conclusion, Virginius said: “We can not but hope that 
reasonable men on all sides will, by-and-by, understand our 
position, and appreciate our principles. We think they are 
those of the ‘Pauline Code’ and must commend themselves 
to sensible men of all parties as scriptural and right. If you 
Northern men could only let us alone in this crisis you would 
greatly oblige us. If ever there was an inopportune period 
for such a movement, as some of you propose, this is the 
time. We marvel that you do not see it so. Perhaps you 
dg..t* 


Previous to the General Conference of 1860, East Balti- 
more conference passed no resolutions on slavery.’  Balti- 
more conference caused considerable excitement in 1857 by 
their resolutions “that we highly deprecate the agitation of 
the slavery question which has already resulted to the detri- 
ment of the political and religious interests of this country” 
and that “as heretofore, we will oppose with equal zeal any 
aggressions which shall be attempted by the abolition agita- 
tion of the country.”46 Irving H. Torrence introduced a 
resolution declaring that it was “inappropiate and injudi- 
cious” to bring the slavery question before the conference. 
This created so much excitement that the motion was with- 
drawn. Henry Slicer asked for a reconsideration of the 
resolutions but John A. Collins asserted that, while he 
regretted that they had ever been introduced, they dared not 
recede from their position or they would wreck the work of 
the Church on the border. The motion for reconsideration 
was therefore tabled.17 As a result of this action, Bennett 
of Wisconsin conference, charged that these ministers had 


The General Conference of 1860 223 


departed from “the old Methodist platform on the subject 
of slavery.”18 

The alteration of the General Rule on Slavery was an im- 
portant topic in abolition conferences. East Maine conference 
declared that a change was necessary because “under the 
joint influence of constitutional toleration, verbal defects of 
the law, and laxity in the administration, two fifths of this 
anti-slavery church has become one of the most hopelessly 
pro-slavery ecclesiastical organizations in the land. This 
moral apostacy in the Church South has preceded, if not 
produced a gross demoralization of sentiment in all that 
region, so that what was once bewailed as a terrible though 
transient evil, is now boldly affirmed to be an equitable, 
divine, and permanent institution.” They therefore asked 
for such changes of the rule as would destroy all “sinful 
slaveholding.”” But that this conference was not of the most 
radical group is apparent from their resolution “That we 
highly honor our Border brethren; that we sympathize with 
them in their struggles; and that we solemnly pledge our- 
selves to. prosecute our plans for the purity of our common 
Zion by constitutional action in a conciliatory spirit.”!® 

Maine conference was also convinced that the meaning of 
the rule was not clear.2° These ministers were much more 
radical and less considerate of border conferences for they 
declared that while some harm might result to the “border 
brethren,” they considered it expedient to seek the extirpa- 
tion of slavery from the Church, and their delegates to the 
General Conference were instructed to work towards that 
end.24_ New England conference recommended that the 
General Conference formulate a rule on slavery and submit 
it to the various conferences for their approval.?? 

The desire for a change of the slavery rule was almost 
unanimous among northern conferences. Some of them pro- 
fessed to believe that the rule as it was prohibited slavery, 
yet they desired some kind of a change that would leave no 
room for doubt on that point. One important step was 
taken by many conferences to secure united action. A rep- 
resentive from each body was appointed to correspond with 
persons selected by other groups so that the largest measure 
of co-operation might be obtained. 


224 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


Resolutions are many times meaningless and inconse- 
quential. But when, as a result of the adoption of a resolu- 
tion, loss of prestige, property or numbers ensues, words are 
more carefully weighed and debated from every angle. Such 
was the situation in the years from 1858 to 1860. For the 
Methodist Episcopal Church faced the possibility of serious 
secessions from border conferences if a radical position on 
slavery were decided upon. The action of the conferences, 
therefore, upon the definite proposals submitted to them had 
a real significance in one of the most crucial periods in the 
history of the Methodist Church. 


Five conferences: namely, New England, Providence, 
Cincinnati, Erie and Minnesota, proposed specific changes in 
the rule on slavery. That of Cincinnati conference was the 
most conservative but was a distinct advance over the exist- 
ing rule. The other four differed in wording but not at all 
in purpose. Only the Providence and Erie suggestions met 
with any considerable response. Each conference had the 
support of twelve other conferences.?? But for no resolution 
did three-fourths of the ministers vote, so that this method 
of changing the rule had failed as before. 


Against these proposed changes border conferences were a 
unit. Southern Illinois conference declared slavery to be 
“an unmitigated evil; approved the attempts being made in 
Missouri and other states to destroy slavery in the Church 
when it was done for mercenary purposes and asserted that 
all slaveholders for gain should be expelled from the Church, 
yet they resolved: “That we are satisfied with the discipline 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, as it now is, on the sub- 
ject of Slavery.”** They opposed all suggested changes and 
asserted that the existing rule would “properly regulate, if 
not entirely extirpate’’ the great evil. Finally they stated: 
“Resolved, that we have implicit confidence in our brethren 
in the border Conferences, that we deeply sympathize with 
them in the persecutions which they are called to endure; 
and, inasmuch as they are more interested in the subject than 
any other portion of the church, that they should be per- 
mitted to take the initiative in regard to any change which 
may be considered necessary.” Delegates to General Con- 
ferences were instructed to act “in harmony with the fore- 


The General Conference of 1860 225 


going resolutions.”*> Kentucky conference refused to concur 
in any of the proposed changes and their delegates were 
“instructed to use their influence and cast their votes against 
any change of the General Rule.’** Western Virginia con- 
ference likewise defeated every attempt to alter the rule on 
slavery.2* Baltimore conference declared that they were 
“determined not to hold connection with any ecclesiastical 
body which makes nonslaveholding a condition of member- 
ship in the church.’ 


In New York, two conferences stood with the border 
ministers. New York conference voted, 75 to 65, against 
the Providence resolution. One writer says that the negative 
vote was returned because not enough ministers of other 
conferences had voted for the proposed change to constitute 
a legal majority. He assures us, however, that the confer- 
ence elected “progressive’ men as delegates to the ensuing 
General Conference. Dr. Bangs introduced a resolution 
“instructing the delegates to vote against any change of the 
rule on slavery” but this “was laid upon the table by a 
decisive vote.’ The same writer again declared that “the 
delegation from this conference” was “most decidedly pro- 
gressive—some say slightly radical.”*° But no action indicat- 
ing radicalism was taken on any subject connected with 
slavery. 

New York East conference had apparently joined the 
ranks of the radicals. But the proposition to concur in any 
of the suggested changes was definite. Prior to 1860 the 
conference approved the Cincinnati resolution, but in that 
year they voted to reject all proposals of other conferences.*° 
That there was tremendous excitement in this body of min- 
isters is evidenced by the action taken on a resolution asking 
the General Conference “to devise such measures as shall 
clearly prohibit all slaveholding for selfish or mercenary 
purposes.” During the debate, Kettel, one of the members, 
“affirmed most emphatically, that under God’s providence, 
slavery in America had been the only thing which had el- 
evated the negro race, and he was a bold man who would 
dare deny it! In morals, health, and civilization, the slaves 
were far above the free negroes.’%° On the first vote, the 
resolution was lost, 91 to 88. Later enough members 


226 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


changed their votes so that the recommendation to the Gen- 
eral Conference passed by one vote,®! yet the conference 
failed to act in any effective manner on the subject before 
them. 

When the General Conference of 1860 met at Buffalo, the 
Nation and the Church were in a turmoil. Political parties 
were choosing their leaders for the coming campaign and it 
seemed that some radical action would surely be taken by 
the Church. An unprecedented number of memorials on 
slavery were presented in favor of a change of the rule.*” 
The majority of the Committee on Slavery,** which was, as 
usual, composed of one member from each conference, 
reported in favor of a rule which would forbid “The buying, 
selling, or holding of men, women, and children with an 
intention to enslave them.’’%* For almost two weeks it was 
the subject of a spirited debate. A substitute motion, provid- 
ing for the strict interpretation of the existing rule, was 
tabled, 135 to 85.35 When the vote on the rule was finally 
taken, it failed, 138 to 74, of having the necessary two-thirds 
majority.24 Since the same and similar propositions had 
failed to receive the votes of three-fourths of the ministers 
in annual conferences there was no possibility of changing 
the rule on slavery.*® 

Since these attempts had ended in failure, abolitionists 
sought to strengthen the chapter on slavery—which could 
be done by a majority vote. In this they were successful, 
for the so-called ‘“‘New Chapter” was adopted, 155 to 58. In 
answer to the question as to what should be done “for the 
extirpation of the evil of slavery,’ they answered: “We 
declare that we are as much as ever convinced of the great 
evil of slavery. We believe that the buying, selling, or hold- 
ing of human beings, as chattels, is contrary to the laws of 
God and nature, inconsistent with the Golden Rule, and with 
that Rule in our Discipline, which requires all who desire to 
remain among us to ‘do no harm, and to avoid evil of 
every kind’. We therefore affectionately admonish all our 
preachers and people to keep themselves pure from this great 
evil, and to seek its extirpation by all lawful and Christian 
means.”’%6 

The reason for the conservatism of the delegates is ex- 
plained by Brunson who says that “the brethren from the 


The General Conference of 1860 227 


border conferences in which slavery existed, or from the 
great commercial emporiums whose merchants dealt with 
the South, and whose interests were as much with the South 
as if they actually owned slaves themselves, strongly opposed 
any change of our rules which were deemed an advance 
toward the ultimate abolition of this ‘sum of all villanies’; 
not because they really favored the system themselves but 
because it was for the interest of the people they served, to 
let the system alone, however much wrong it might do the 
subjects of it, professing to view the evil as incurable.’’%? 
Considerable pressure was brought to bear upon these dele- 
gates to block all advanced legislation on the subject of 
slavery, under threat of joining the Church, South; and a 
like compulsion was exerted upon the delegates from aboli- 
tion conferences, the members of which, in many instances, 
threatened to join a more anti-slavery Church if radical 
action were not taken.?® 

Having made this radical change in the chapter on slavery, 
the General Conference became fearful lest they actually had 
done something that would alienate border conferences from 
the Church. So, by an almost unanimous vote, they pro- 
ceeded to nullify the New Chapter by deciding that it “ ‘was 
in itself so clearly declarative and advisory as not to need 
any explanation.’ It had not, therefore, the force of law.’ 
The threats of Baltimore and other conferences had had 
their influence in the counsels of the highest legislative body 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 

The results of the General Conference satisfied neither 
radical abolitionists nor conservatives in slaveholding states. 
The majority report of the committee on slavery was 
approved by most northern conferences and the New Chapter 
was fairly well supported. But New England conference, 
while commending the advance of abolitionism in the Confer- 
ence, regretted that a change had not been made “so clearly 
prohibiting the practice of slaveholding that neither delin- 
quents should be able to escape its penalty, or the different 
authorities of the Church to give to it diverse interpretations, 
as seems now to be the case.”49 And Providence conference, 
while approving the New Chapter, expressed the fear that 
bishops and other leaders would evade the New Chapter and 


228 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


contravene the will of the majority of the General Confer- 
ence and of the members of the Church.*4 


Along the border, conferences sought either to interpret 
the General Conference action in such a manner that it was 
completely nullified or else attempted to secure the repeal of 
the chapter. Southern Illinois conference rejoiced that the 
Methodist Church had always taken anti-slavery ground and 
had protested continuously against slavery. But they also 
asked the “brethren everywhere, to frown upon all attempts 
for the forcible dissolution of the relation between master 
and slave, which, by the sanction of municipal law, exists in 
the slaveholding States of this Confederacy.” On the other 
hand, they demanded the right of free speech on the subject 
of slavery. Relative to the action of the General Conference 
of 1860 they said that, while they had been opposed to any 
change of the Discipline on the question of slavery, they 
would submit to the General Conference decision. As to 
the effect of the New Chapter they asserted “that in view of 
the advisory character of the new chapter on slavery, we 
regard it as really more lenient to our brethren, who are 
unhappily connected with slavery, than were the provisions 
of the former chapter.” They were therefore opposed to 
the secession of any annual conference as a result of this 
legislation.*? 

The Baltimore conferences were in open rebellion. A 
meeting of laymen, in June, 18600, refused to obey the law 
of the Church, since they considered it “injurious to the 
Church of God” among them. ‘They expressed the desire 
that the former rule might still prevail.48 In December of 
the same year a convention of laymen met in Baltimore. 
They declared in favor of peace; repudiated the action of 
the General Conference; and requested Baltimore and other 
border conferences to secede from the Church. The confer- 
ences of the Church were given until December 14, 1861 to 
call a General Conference for the purpose of repudiating the 
action of 1860.44 That the sentiment of the section around 
Baltimore was almost unanimously opposed to the action of 
the General Conference was the opinion of the editor of the 
Baltimore Christian Advocate, who said: “The difference of 
opinion among us is not serious in kind or extent. There 


The General Conference of 1860 229 


are a few who approve the action of the General Conference. 
But, as far as we know, they might hold a mass meeting in 
an omnibus, and give seats to spectators.’ 


The first meeting of Baltimore laymen was a warning to 
northern Methodist leaders that secessions from the Church 
would be very serious unless something were done to pacify 
border Methodists. It was for the purpose of preventing 
another rupture of the Church that The Methodist was estab- 
lished at New York. In the very first number, the editor 
took occasion to re-affirm the statement of the General Con- 
ference that the New Chapter was only advisory and that 
“mere advice’ was not “a sufficient cause for revolution.” 
The threatened secession was of such a nature that it was 
believed impossible to justify it before God or the people.*® 


The panic of northern leaders is most easily seen at Balti- 
more conference, which met in March, 1861. During this 
conference certain questions were submitted to Bishop Scott, 
the presiding officer, for authoritative answers. He was 
asked whether there was anything in the Discipline to 
prevent the ordination of a local preacher who held slaves; 
whether there was anything in the Discipline by which a 
slaveholder could be excluded from the Church, and whether 
there was anything in the law of the Church which justified 
an administrator in arraigning a slaveholder as a sinner. All 
these questions were answered in the negative. The fourth 
question was whether there was any process authorized by 
the Discipline by which a member could be brought to trial 
if he held slaves for gain. Scott replied: “I know of no 
such process.” The fifth question read: “Is the New Chap- 
ter to be regarded as containing the doctrine and belief of 
our Church on slavery?’ Scott answered: “The Chapter 
contains an admonition, and from its position in the Disci- 
pline claims to be regarded as expressing the doctrine of the 
church on slavery.” Then the conference asked: “Is not 
every man a sinner against God, and the laws of nature, and 
the precepts of the Bible, who holds a slave in the sense of 
the New Chapter’” Scott diplomatically replied: “He is, 
in the sense of the Discipline, whatever that sense is.” The 
last question read: “Is it not, under the Discipline, the duty 
of every member of the church to engage in active efforts 


230 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


for the abolition of slavery?” And Scott answered emphati- 
cally: ‘“‘Not more under the present than under the former 
Discipline.”’47 

But if Scott and other bishops hoped to save this confer- 
ence for the Church they failed miserably. Whether because 
they were disgusted at the equivocal answers of Bishop Scott 
or feared that the laymen would support them in no action 
short of secession is not certain, but the ministers protested 
against the action of the General Conference,*® and, by a 
vote of 87 to 1, declared themselves “separate and independ- 
ent” from the Methodist Episcopal’ Church. Armstrong 
says they redeemed the promise which had repeatedly been 
made to their people that they would not submit to the 
domination of radical abolitionists. Forty-one refused to 
vote.*? Had it not been for the “judicious” rulings of Bishop 
Scott it is probable that the whole conference would have 
withdrawn from the northern Church.°° 

Those who withdrew did not immediately join the Church, 
South. They even claimed to be a part of the northern 
Church. Their hope was that other conferences would join 
them and thus form the real Methodist Episcopal Church. 
The bishops were asked to repudiate the action of the Gene- 
ral Conference of 1860.°! Only a few conferences seem to 
have considered the recommendation. Upper lowa confer- 
ence condemned the “spirit of disloyalty and secession mani- 
fested by the Baltimore Christian Advocate’ and _ its 
supporters, and declared that if the New Chapter did not 
express the sentiments of the people in the neighborhood of 
. Baltimore, they were “forced to conclude that they” were 
“anti-slavery only in name.”°? Minnesota conference passed 
the resolution: “That we decidedly, unreservedly and per- 
petually non-concur.”°? These are but typical of resolutions 
passed by several northern conferences.*4 

Just how this situation would have developed under 
normal conditions can not be determined. For the Civil War 
cut off most southern ministers so that they could not attend 
the conference at Baltimore in March, 1862. As a result, 
only about fifty members, part of whom had approved the 
action of the previous conferences, met under the presidency 
of Bishop Janes. All affirmed their allegiance to the north- 


The General Conference of 1860 231 


ern Church and “by resolution, declared the majority, absent 
thus compulsorily, withdrawn, by a vote of 22 to 11.” The 
southern faction continued to meet annually in Virginia, and 
after the war voted to join the Church, South. Thus the 
Methodist Episcopal Church lost “one hundred and eight 
travelling and fifty-seven local preachers, and nearly twelve 
thousand members.’’®® 

Outside of the Baltimore conferences, the most serious 
secessions were in Philadelphia, Western Virginia and 
Southern Illinois conferences. In the first, Bishop Janes 
had to use the utmost discretion and tact in placing ministers, 
and even then many withdrew from the Church.°® In West- 
ern Virginia conference a close friend of Bishop Simpson 
wrote that he did not believe that some members would 
remain with the Church until 1861.57 Some ministers in 
Illinois also withdrew and, in 1866, were received into the 
southern Church.®® 

The Methodist Episcopal Church had failed in its supreme 
Opportunity to become an anti-slavery Church. Fearful lest 
there might be some ministers and members who would 
withdraw from the Church if the rule on slavery were made 
to completely exclude all slaveholders from the denomination, 
they continued “so to serve God as not to offend the Devil.” 
But even then they were to fail in their purpose, for border 
conferences, ministers and members joined the Church, 
South, with whose principles they had all along been in the 
fullest sympathy. The freeing of the Church from slavery 
was to come by a radical and unnatural upheaval rather than 
by revolutionary methods. 





%. Minutes of the New England Conference, 1857, p. 26. Cf. Ibid., 
1858, pp. 238-4. ° 

Minutes of the New York Conference, 1858, p. 22. 

Tbhid., 1860, p. 33. 

The Liberator, Volume XXVII., p. 77, col, 5; May 15, 1857. \ 

Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXYV., p. 66, col. 6; April 28, 

1858. 

Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IV., p. 161, col. 5; 

October 8, 1856. 

Minutes of the Illinois Conference, 1859, p. 25. 

Minutes of the Southern Illinois conference for 1856 and 1857. 

Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IV., p. 179, col. 2; 

November 5, 1856. 

10. Ibid., Volume VII., p. 150, col. 5; September 21, 1859. 

11. Minutes of the Delaware (Ohio) Conference, 1859, pp. 25-7. 

12. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume VIII, p. 50, col. 3; 
March 28, 1860. 


wer gh omer 


232 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


13. 
14. 


15. 
16. 


a hy 


18. 
19. 
20. 
21. 


22. 
23. 


24, 
25. 
26. 


27. 


28. 


31. 
32. 


Baltimore Christian Advocate, Volume IIL, p. 2, cols. 3-4; March 
31, 1860. 

Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume VIII., p. 57, cols. 3-4; 
April 11, 1860. 

See the Minutes of the conference for 1859 and 1860. 

The resolutions were adopted by the overwhelming vote of 220 to 
14. 

Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXIV., p. 47, col. 2; March 
25, 1857. Cf. Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XXI., April 
9, 1857. The figures in the two papers are not identical. 
Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXIV., p. 81, col. 4; May 27, 
1857. 

Minutes of the East Maine Conference, 1860, pp. 14-16. 

Minutes of the Maine Conference, 1856, p. 10. 

Ibid., 1860, p. 14. 

Minutes of the New England Conference, 1860, p. 18. 

The General Conference Committee on Slavery reported the fol- 
lowing votes on the three most popular resolutions: Cincinnati, 
319 for and 1212 against; Providence, 1242 for and 1329 against; 
Erie, 1795 for and 1416 against. On the Erie resolution the fol- 
lowing conferences were overwhelmingly opposed: Baltimore, 149 
to 0; California, 56 to 0; East Baltimore, 156 to 0; Kentucky, 16 
to 0; Missouri, 42 to 0; New Jersey, 72 to 0; Southern Illinois, 80 
to 0; Western Virginia, 72 to 0; Illinois, 115 to 24; Newark, 106 to 
37; New York, 146 to 45; and Philadelphia, 169 to 8. (See Journal 
of General Conference, 1860, p. 425, Appendix GG). 

Minutes of the Southern Illinois Conference, 1858, p. 17. 

Ibid, 1859, pp.. 32-3. 

Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume VIII., p. 50, col. 3; 
March 28, 1860. 

Ibid., Volume VII., p. 78, cols. 4-5; May 18, 1859. The opposition 
of the conference to the Cincinnati resolution was based on the 
belief that ‘“‘the amendment proposed - . is unauthorized by 
apostolic practice; that it involves a wide departure from the 
policy of the church, hitherto, as manifested down to recent periods 
in the successive formation of new conferences on the border, 
without intimation of any such change of rule; that it is to 
conflict with the whole past history of Methodism, both in Englandg 
and America; that the church, throughout the entire territory 
where the proposed rule would have any application, is entirely 
and decidedly opposed to its enactment; that the proposed rule is 
needless, and therefore hurtful, threatening to other sections of our 
Zion, as well as our own, a harvest of profitless questions and 
abstractions, and regarding, as did our fathers, the present 
General Rule in the Discipline as prohibiting all traffic in slaves 
except for merciful purposes.’’ 

Ibid., Volume VIII., p. 50, col. 2; March 28, 1860. Commenting 
upon the action of the Baltimore conference, the editor said that 
in all the history of the Church ‘“‘we have never conceded the right 
of any man to hold another as property. We have always been 
pledged to the work of extirpation, and regard the rebuke to a 
wholesome agitation as at variance with the spirit of Methodism.” 


. Ibid, p. 66, col 3; April 25, 1860. 
30. 


Ibid., cols. 3-4. The attitude of the Southern Church towards 
such a speech may be seen from the statement of the editor of 
the St. Louis Christian Advocate: “If that be conservatism, we would 
like to know what our northern brethren mean when they talk 
about the ‘pro-slaveryism’ of the Southern Church! In all our 
life long we never heard a Southern Methodist preacher go further 
than this.’” (Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXVIL, p. 82, 
col. 4; May 238, 1860). 

Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume VIII., p. 66, cols. 3-4; 
April 25, 1860 and Ibid., p. 74, col. 4; May 9, 1860. 

Journa] of General Conference, 1860, pp. 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45, 46, 


The General Conference of 1860 233: 


51, 54, 56, 57, 58, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 79, 80 
S21, 62,86, 88; 90, 91,)92,.98,° 99,200, etc, POON Te: 

Memorials against a change in the rule were received from ‘33 
conferences.’’ There were ‘137 memorials, signed, by 3,999 persons 
and from 47 Quarterly Conferences.’’ On the other hand, memor- 
ials from 33 conferences, ‘signed by 45,857 persons, and from 
forty-nine Quarterly Conferences’”’ were received asking for the 
extirpation of slavery. (Ibid., pp. 425-6). Of the memorials 
against a change of the rule, 28 were received from within the 
bounds of the Genesee conference. (Journal of General Conference, 
pp. 39, 44, 45, 50, 59, 77). 


. Calvin Kingsley was Chairman (Ibid., p. 26). 
. Journal of General Conference, 1860, p. 216. Cf. Bennett, History 


of Methodism in Wisconsin, pp. 187-8; and Ridgeway, Life of 
Bishop Janes, pp. 236-7. 


. Journal of General Conference, 1860, pp. 220-22, 517-22. 

. Bennett, History of Methodism in Wisconsin, pp. 187-8. 

. Brunson, A Western Pioneer, Volume II., pp. 282-8. 

. Ibid, pp. 283-4. 

. Ridgeway, The Life of Bishop Janes, p. 237. Cf. Journal of: 


General Conference, 1860, pp. 261-2. The vote on this resolution 
was 175 to 6. 


. Minutes of the New England Conference, 1861, p. 26. 

. Minutes of the Providence Conference, 1861, p. 27. 

. Minutes of the Southern Illinois Conference, 1860, pp. 30-31. 

. Minutes and Annals of the Baltimore Conference (now of the 


M. E. Church, South). During the years 1862-66, Chapter L., p. 4, 


. Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XXIV., December 27, 1860. 
Mmibid. | hulyay 12." 1860), 

. Crooks, The Life of Bishop Simpson, p. 363. 

. The Liberator, Volume XXXI., p. 56, col. 5; April 5, 1861. 

. Baltimore Conference Hand-Book, pp. 97-9. Found at Randolph- 


Macon. 


. Minutes and Annals of the Baltimore Conference, Chapter I., p. 4. 


Cf. Armstrong, The Old Baltimore Conference, pp. 283-4. 


. Ridgeway, Life of Bishop Janes, p. 244. Scott had the whole- 


hearted support of Janes on all the answers to the questions 
submitted. 


. Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, pp. 186-7. 
. Minutes of the Upper Iowa Conference, 1860, p. 27. 
. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., p. 347, col. 33 


October 30, 1861. 


. Minutes of New Hampshire, Vermont, Troy and East Genesee 


conferences have been consulted on this point. East Baltimore 
conference suggested that the regulations be left to each confer-. 
ence but none but border conferences approved the proposal. 


. Myers, The Disruption of the M. E. Church, p. 187. 
. Ridgeway, Life of Bishop Janes, pp. 244-5. 

. Crooks, The Life of Bishop Simpson, p. 363. 

. Myers, The Disruption of the M. EB, Church, p. 187. 


CHAPTER XVIII 


SLAVEHOLDING IN THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH 


Charges had been freely made by the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, that the northern Church was as fully pro- 
slavery as itself. It may be said in defense that it takes 
time to break away from the traditions of the past and that 
northern Methodists were coming to a position of antago- 
nism to slavery as rapidly as possible. The fact that the 
General Conference of 1848 made no attempt to destroy 
slavery may be explained by saying that Church leaders were 
intent upon the more pressing questions of the division of 
the Church funds and the intrusion of southern Methodists 
into northern territory. But after 1850 no such excuses 
were valid. Whether or not slaveholding was practiced 
among the membership and ministry of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, the territory in which it was prevalent, and 
the number of slaves held by Methodists are the topics to be 
discussed in the present chapter. 

That the Discipline of the Church permitted slaveholding 
was generally recognized in the North and joyously affirmed © 
by the South. Vermont conference confessed the fact “with 
shame and sincere sorrow of heart.’ The editor of the True 
Wesleyan declared that the Discipline of the northern Church 
explicitly admitted that slaves were in bondage to Methodists, 
and in proof cited the rule: “All our preachers shall enforce 
upon our members the necessity of teaching their slaves to 
read the word of God.” In 1857, Long insisted that, while 
three-fourths of the membership, lay and clerical, were anti- 
slavery, they had a pro-slavery Discipline which permitted 
members “in Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia to hold for 
gain, to give away, and transmit by will to their heirs, as 
chattels personal, souls for whom Christ died. The slaves 
can be sold for their debts at any time. They can give them 
away to relatives, who can sell them to the negro buyer at 


234 


Slaveholding in the Methodist Episcopal Church 235 


pleasure; and do all this according to the Discipline of the 
church; and they cannot be expelled for it.’ 


Before the General Conference of 1856 Dr. Watson, editor 
of the Northwestern Christian Advocate, had predicted that 
some decisive action on the question of slavery would be 
taken by that body.* After the adjournment of that Confer- 
ence, he maintained that the delegates were unanimously 
anti-slavery and that the “expressed will of the Church at 
the late General Conference” was: “Any person holding a 
human being as a slave, is a sinner, and ineligible to 
membership.” But the editor of the Nashville Christian 
Advocate cited the fact that there were many slaveholders in 
the northern Church to prove that Watson’s statement was 
unreliable.» The very fact that, during the next four years, 
abolitionists employed every possible method to secure a 
change of the rule on slavery is conclusive proof that the 
tule of 1856 was not sufficient to exclude all slaveholders 
from the Church. 


It is true that the “New Chapter” was adopted by the 
General Conference of 1860, but its force was completely 
nullified by interpretations given by the Conference and 
bishops. Bishops Simpson, Janes and Scott did all that was 
possible to protect slaveholders in border conferences, lest 
these members be lost to Methodism. Bishop Scott’s official 
interpretation of the New Chapter before Baltimore confer- 
ence confirms the conclusions of radicals that the Discipline 
did not forbid slaveholding. 

The General Conference and bishops were not alone in 
the opinion that the Discipline permitted slaveholding. Again 
and again, abolition conferences condemned the rules of the 
Church because they favored slaveholders. Even after the 
General Conference of 1860 the fear was expressed that the 
New Chapter would be so construed by bishops that slave- 
holding could continue among members of the Church as it 
had previously. Among border ministers there was no 
question that the Discipline permitted members and local 
preachers to hold slaves. And the majority of the General 
Conference stirred them to such an extent that they 
threatened to withdraw unless the legislation were rescinded. 


Thus far we have considered the possibility of Methodists 


236 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


holding slaves in border conferences and yet being in con- 
formity with the Discipline. That slaveholding was the rule 
among well-to-do border Methodists was freely charged. 
Speaking of this section of the country, one minister affirmed: 
“Many of the stewards are slaveholders. To a great extent 
this office is represented by the moneyed men in the Church 
—the large holders of property. One half of the whole 
number of stewards on those districts are probably slave- 
holders. . .Exhorters, leaders and local preachers are 
slaveholders.”* Long mentions two Methodists who died 
in 1855 and 1856 who left from twenty-five to thirty slaves 
in bondage for life? J. G. D. Pettijohn, a member of 
North Indiana conference, testified that he had seen a class 
leader of the Church buy a slave girl. The official refused 
to listen to the mother who begged that her only remaining 
child should not be separated from her.2 H. C. Atwater, 
of Providence conference, declared that border Methodists 
were opposed to abolitionists and anti-slavery movements 
of any kind. “Jt matters not how many slaves a man owns, 
it is no objection to his becoming a member of these mission 
churches. . . .Ihousands of slaves are held without a 
word of rebuke by the membership, in six of the Confer- 
ences of the Northern Church.’”® And the editor of Zion’s 
Herald, commenting upon the statement circulated after the 
General Conference of 1852 that the Methodist Episcopal 
Church was free from “mercenary slaveholding,” said that 
“there never was a grosser mistake—o call it by no graver 
name.’® 

The connection of the ministry with slavery was still more 
emphatically maintained. “Slaveholding in the ministry is 
the rule,” said the editor of the Northern Independent, “non- 
slaveholding the exception. We let all our preachers hold 
slaves, if they will consent to be local and unordained. We 
will consent to ordain them, and let them travel, slaveholders 
though they be, if wicked slaveholders are disposed to make 
a law forbidding emancipation. . . .It is a well-known 
fact that many of our local preachers are slaveholders. No 
intelligent man will presume to deny this statement. There 
never has been any objection to local preachers holding 
slaves: the practice is as free to them as to any other 





Slaveholding in the Methodist Episcopal Church 287 


anember of the Church.’?° A free colored local preacher 
sold a slave, simply because he had run away, and yet his 
license was not taken from him. Atwater asserts that 
absolutely no check was put upon slaveholding “travelling” 
preachers.? . 

The editor of the Richmond Christian Advocate challenged 
Bishop Simpson and Dr. McClintock, who, as delegates to 
the British Conference had declared that the Methodist 
Episcopal Church was free from slavery, to deny that there 
were “many slaveholders and slaveworkers among the private 
members, and official members, and ministers of the Northern 
division of the M. E. Church.”® The editor of the Nashville 
Christian Advocate declared that there were hundreds of 
members, “including official members and ordained preachers” 
who owned slaves for the same reason that southern slave- 
holders did—namely, that it was profitable. Preachers in 
Maryland and Virginia refused to exclude slaveholders from 
the Church, and even when they were voluntary slaveholders 
they were not brought to trial.1* In answer to a statement 
of Gilbert Haven that the northern Church had refused to 
establish fraternal relations with the Church, South, in 1848 
because Southern Methodists held slaves and defended the 
practice, the same editor wrote Bishop Morris: “You have 
this day many large slaveholders in your division of the 
Church. You know that in Maryland and Virginia, you have 
hundreds, yes, thousands of members who hold slaves; that 
you have ordained to the office and work of the ministry 
many a slaveholder.’ 

It was maintained that there were seven slaveholding 
states, in which the Methodist Church was working, and in 
which slavery was not prohibited among the members by the 
Methodist Episcopal Church.14* In Philadelphia conference, 
which included portions of Delaware, Maryland and Vir- 
ginia, it was persistently stated that there were many slave- 
holders.1® This conference refused to entertain charges 
against the Rev. J. D. Long, apparently because they feared 
that in condemning his book, “Pictures of Slavery,” unwel- 
come disclosures might be made.1® March 30, 1860, Quinn, 
a slaveholding member, was brought to trial on the charge 
of “unministerial and unchristian conduct” because of his 


238 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


relation to slavery. After a very warm and acrimonious 
debate, his character was passed, 86 to 81.17 Long wrote 
that so far as Philadelphia conference was concerned “the 
practical and administrative example and influence of the 
Church” in Delaware, Maryland and Virginia was “‘to per- 
petuate and extend slavery.’’48 The extent of the practice of 
slaveholding may be seen from the statement of one observer 
that in this conference alone there were fifteen hundred 
slaveholders.?® 

In the region around Baltimore a similar condition existed. 
J. K. Peck asserted that a majority of the quarterly confer- 
ence, of which he was a member for a year, “were slave- 
holders for gain.’”*° A local preacher of Baltimore confer- 
ence sold a slave to a slavetrader but remained a local 
preacher; and a prominent member of the Church in the 
same conference sold a mother and five children at public 
auction. Of these slaves, one trader bought the mother and 
one child while the rest were sold to other parties. And yet 
these practices were not rebuked by ministers; in fact, the 
authority for the incident asserts that some ministers told 
their members that they might “buy as many slaves as they 
could pay for.’’4 

The situation does not seem to have been materially differ- 
ent in Western Virginia. It was claimed that a northern 
Methodist preacher of the region owned and sold slaves.”” 
The editor of the Richmond Christian Advocate is authority 
for the charge that a presiding elder of this section, and a 
delegate to the General Conference of 1852, was a slave- 
holder ‘‘to all intents and purposes.’”’ Another presiding 
elder owned slaves in 1851 but sold them and kept the 
money. With biting sarcasm Garrison wrote: “And yet 
Northern Methodist ministers are continually representing 
their Church as free from all taint of slavery.’’% 

In Missouri, slaveholding was also practiced by northern 
Methodists. The editor of the Nashville Christian Advocate 
said that less than fifty of the five thousand five hundred 
members of the northern Church in the state held slaves, 
but he also maintained that many northern Methodists joined 
the southern Church as soon as they arrived in the slave 
state.24 The consistency of many northern Methodists may 


Slaveholding in the Methodtst Episcopal Church 239 


be inferred from the statement of one southerner who 
asserted that in his section of the country there were a 
hundred of them who demanded a northern preacher, and 
yet, said he, “every one of them that can raise the money 
buys negroes and works them as hard as any Southern 
planter.’’25 

As to the number of slaveholders and slaves among the 
members of the Methodist Episcopal Church there is con- 
siderable variation in the estimates. In 1845 one writer 
believed there were “about 80,000 slaves in the Methodist 
Church in America, as members.” Five years later a 
northern minister placed the number of slaveholders at four 
thousand and the slaves at twenty-seven thousand.?’ In 
1860, the editor of the Northern Independent declared that 
there were thirty-five thousand slaves owned by northern 
Methodists who were members in good and regular standing 
and acknowledged as Christians.2* Still another anti-slavery 
advocate wrote: “We speak of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, North, which Bishop Simpson and Dr. M’Clintock 
stated, before the English Conference of 1857, to be free 
from the stain of slavery, but which we are prepared to 
show has at this moment (1860) some 15,000 slaveholders 
in its communion, holding about 100,000 slaves. Our 
object is not to make any man a liar, but to elicit the 
truth.”28 Whether the writer was himself telling the truth 
can not be determined. To reconcile the estimates is im- 
possible. But one fact remains certain: that slaves were 
held in considerable numbers by northern Methodist 
members, officials and ministers, at least until 1864. 

The condemnation visited upon the Advocates of Baltimore 
and New York by abolitionists indicates that these papers 
were either apologizing for, or sympathetic with, slave- 
holders and slavery. Concerning the former there can be 
no question at all; relative to the latter one incident gives 
some indication of its attitude. In 1852 or 1853 a slave- 
holder, Mr. George Gorsuch, was killed by his slave in 
Pennsylvania. Subsequently, there was published in the 
Christian Advocate and Journal a memoir of the deceased 
in which it was asserted that Gorsuch was “one of the 
brightest ornaments of the Church. A consistent, meek, 


240 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


and holy Christian, in the best and truest sense of the word.” 
Of course, no editor would care to be held responsible for 
the obituaries which appear in the columns of his paper! 
But this statement was protested by a member of New York 
East conference, who affirmed that to commend such a man 
was “to insult the moral sense of nineteen-twentieths of the 
M. E. Church.” The responsibility of Dr. Peck, the editor, 
began at this point, for the protest was returned with a 
refusal on his part to publish it.%° 

Both southerners and abolitionists were quick to point 
out that, so far as the practice of the two churches was 
concerned, they were a unit in their attitude towards slavery. 
One southern leader contended that the “preachers and 
people of the Northern division of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church hold slaves as truly as those of the Southern 
division.’31 The editor of the Nashville Christian Advocate 
emphasized the fact that the southern Church was being 
condemned for doing exactly what the northern Church was 
continually practicing. Both communions had members who 
were slaveholders; deacons and elders who owned slaves; 
and ministers were chosen for their work in exactly the 
same way in both Churches. Those of the northern Church 
“were ordained by the laying on of the hands of the Bishop. 
Bishop Waugh, Bishop Morris and Bishop Janes, to my 
certain knowledge, have each ordained slaveholders to the 
office of deacon and elder. Where, then, is the difference?”®? 
And the simple fact was—and many in the North were 
ready to confess it—that there was no difference between a 
slaveholder in the northern Methodist Church and one in 
the Church, South. 

Northern Church leaders had contended that they were 
standing for a principle when they deposed Bishop Andrew; 
when they refused fraternal relations with the southern 
Church in 1848; and when they proclaimed that they repre- 
sented the anti-slavery organization, while the Church, South, 
was composed largely of slaveholders. But the editor of 
the Northern Independent exploded this theory when he 
wrote: “The question of principle does not divide the Church 
North from the Church South, so far as its practice is 
concerned. It is a question of quantity more than of quality 


Slaveholding in the Methodist Episcopal Church 241 


—a question of retail versus wholesale. The Church South 
does a wholesale business in human slavery; the North, a 
retail business in this abomination. On the score of consis- 
tency, the South has decidedly the advantage. It says that 
slavery is a divine institution, and consequently takes it to 
its bosom. The Church North says, ‘It is the vilest thing 
that ever saw the sun,’ and yet refuses to thrust it out of 
it communion.”%8 


1. Minutes of the Vermont Conference, 1856, p. 15. 

2. The Liberator, Volume XXIII, p. 159, col. 2; October 7, 1853. 

3. Long, Pictures of Slavery in Church and State, pp. 33-4. 

4. Supra, pp. 209-10. 

5. Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XX., September 18, 1856. 

6. Pullen, Blast of a Trumpet in Zion, p. 24. 

7. Long, Pictures of Slavery in Church and State, pp. 31-4. 

8. Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXII, p. 78, col. 3; May 16, 
1855. 

9. Quoted in The Liberator, Volume XXXI., p. 54, col. 3; April 5, 1861. 

10. Ibid., cols, 3-4. 

11. Pullen, Blast of a Trumpet in Zion, p. 26. 

12. Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XX., September 18, 1856. 

13. The Liberator, Volume XXXI., pv. 54, col. 4; April 5, 1861. The 


New Hampshire conference of 1846 had the same idea as Haven. 
“That we consider it a matter of joy and of devout thanksgiving 
and praise to God, that there is not a slaveholder in the travelling 
ministry of the M. EH. Church of the United States of America.’’ 
(Minutes of the New Hampshire Conference, 1846, p. 15). 

14. The Liberator, Volume XXIII., p. 159, col. 2; October 7, 1853. 
There were eight slaveholding conferences in the northern Church: 
namely, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Pittsburg, Ohio, Western Virginia, 
Indiana, Illinois and Missouri. (Ibid., XVIII., p. 154, cols. 3-4; 
September 29, 1848). 


15. Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXIX., p. 98, col. 1: 
June 23, 1858. 

16. Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XXIII., April 15, 1859. 

17. Ibid., Volume XXTV., April 19, 1860. 

18. Pullen, Blast of a Trumpet in Zion, pp. 23-4. 

19. Ibid., pp. 17-19, 22. Cf. The Liberator, Volume XXII, p. 81, cols. 
LaZr Maya leel soa. 

20. Peck, Stevens answered in his appeal to the M. E. Church, p. 30. 

. The Liberator, Volume XXII., p. 81, cols. 1-2; May 21, 1852. 

22. Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XXI., July 30, 1857. The 
editor, on another occasion, related the story of a slave who had 
been sold to a trader who took the negro further south. He 
declared that this was the same slave who had been sold to a 
brutal slave-trader by a Methodist preacher of the northern Church 
a few years before. The character of this trader was likened to 
that of Legree in “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.’’ The slave had been 
handcuffed while the preacher looked on. The editor commented: 
“The church south don’t do such things, It would not tolerate 
such a slave-holder in its communion an hour.’”’ (Nashville and 
Louisville Christian Advocate, Volume XVII, September 8, 1853). 

23. The Liberator, Volume XXII., p. 81, cols. 4-5; May 21, 1852. 

24. Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XXIV., February 23, 1860. 

25. Ibid., Volume XIV., No. 17; February 22, 1850. 


242 Eptscopal Methodism and Slavery 


26. The Liberator, Volume XV., p. 73, col. 8; May 9, 1845. The 
article is quoted from the Glasgow Argus of March Yo, 1845. Henry 
C. Wright of Philadelphia was the author. 

27. Parker Pillsbury’s statement in The Liberator, Volume XX., p. 24, 
col. 3; February 8, 1850. 

28. The Liberator, Volume XXX., p. 119, cols. 3-4; July 27, 1860. 

29. Pullen, Blast of a Trumpet in Zion, p. 8. 

30. Thids\ ppsvaT=18i Oren tne Liberator, Volume XXII., p. 81, cols. 
1-2; "May 21, 1852. 

31. The Liberator, Volume XXXI., p. 54, col. 3; April 5, 1861. 

32. Ibid., col. 4. 

33. Ibid., cols. 3-4. 


CHAPTER XIX 


SOUTHERN METHODISM AND SLAVERY 


The decade preceding the Civil War witnessed the consum- 
mation of the desires of the pro-slavery party in the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South. Slight though the 
restraints of the Church had been which kept the pro-slavery 
extremists within certain bounds, even these were thrown 
aside as soon as it became expedient to do so. Gradually 
but surely the defense of the conservative party was broken 
down and the southern Church came to be an important 
bulwark of the pro-slavery party. 


The two parties in the South—conservative and extreme 
pro-slavery—were composed of earnest and devout men. 
The attitude of the former group was maintained in the 
face of threats of radical southerners. A correspondent of 
the Holston Christian Advocate declared that Methodists in 
the South never had been and were not then pro-slavery in 
their sentiments. They disapproved the system of slavery 
but accepted it as “necessary and unavoidable” for their 
section. Another writer said that in Missouri there were 
no slave-traders among Methodist ministers, and that he 
knew of only one case in which a minister had bought a 
slave and then it was a case of Christian benevolence.? 
Always, southern Methodists returned to the teachings of 
Bible characters—especially Paul—to show that, in not seek- 
ing the utter destruction of slavery, they were following in 
the footsteps of those worthies.? 

The ultra party of the Church, South, condemned the 
principles of abolitionists in both North and South. South- 
ern Methodists did not tamely submit to denunciations by 
ultra-abolitionists of the Garrisonian school. The condemna- 
tion of the churches by Theodore Parker* was scarcely more 
scathing than that heaped upon abolitionists by Dr. Baker of 
the Nashville Christian Advocate. He undoubtedly repre- 
sented a large number of southerners who considered north- 


243 


244 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


ern radicals hypocritical and ignorant of the divine plan for 
the negro race. Northern abolitionists had kept the nation 
in an uproar through Congress; they were destitute of 
truth, and Frederick Douglass, Garrison and others, having 
rejected the Bible, were to be classed as infidels. Self- 
interest was declared to be the reason for the exertions of 
abolitionists, “For the abolitionist,’ said Baker, “steals 
negroes for pay and takes their labor for nothing. He lectures 
for the luxury of beholding rosy cheeked damsels weep, 
and that chicken-pie and plum-pudding may vanish before his 
voracious appetite.’’® 


Not only were Garrisonian radicals condemned but publica- 
tions of the northern Church were also censured. A meet- 
ing at Bothesville, Virginia, passed a resolution against 
official northern Methodist papers because they had “become 
abolition sheets of the rankest character,” and they asked 
attorneys and post-masters of the state “to examine them, 
and'if found to be of unlawful character, to deal with them 
and their agents as the laws of our State direct.’”® 


After the northern General Conference of 1856, when the 
Tract Society was instructed to publish anti-slavery docu- 
ments, the editors of Advocates at Charleston and Richmond 
withdrew their support from this organization. The Tract 
Society had resolved “to treat of ‘the moral evils and 
vices which slavery is known to promote,’ as it would other 
vices and evils.”? Dr. Lee declared that the Tract Society had . 
outlived its usefulness so far as the South was concerned. 
“For years we have commended and co-operated with this 
Society. We considered it American, and believed it Christian. 
It ceases in both respects; it has become sectional in char- 
acter and abolitional in its objects. As at present consti- 
tuted, it is an enemy of the South. The Philistines have con- 
quered it, changed it, subsidized it to their disorganizing and 
vicious objects; denuded it of its virtues, and debauched it 
by a union with the most graceless and brazen-faced ism of 
the day.’ . 

For those Methodists who opposed the pro-slavery tendency 
of the southern Methodist Church and people, the ultra par- 
ty had nothing but contempt and persecution. —Two Wesleyan 
preachers, Crooks and McBride, were driven from North 


Southern Methodism and Slavery 245 


Carolina by pro-slavery mobs because they preached 
against slavery to audiences composed of people who were 
sympathetic with their cause.2 The editor of the Richmond 
Christian Advocate condemned some abolitionists in North 
Carolina for their work among the slaves and asserted that 
the southern Church was sending the Gospel to the negroes 
as fast as possible.2 By a Virginia paper, Baltimore con- 
ference ministers were considered “‘the most deadly foes” to 
southern institutions and it recommended that they be 
expelled from the state and that the southern Methodist 
Church commence work in towns and cities of Virginia 
where the northern Church was then established. “Let the 
good work commenced continue till the whole valley and 
western portion of Virginia are cleansed of the foul leprosy 
of anti-slavery Methodism.’”?° 

If pro-slavery advocates condemned the propagandists 
from the North, they were still more incensed at those of 
their own number who refused to accede to their demands. 
In Mississippi when seven members of Mississippi confer- 
ence voted against striking out the rule on slavery in the 
Discipline, several papers demanded to know who the seven 
“negro worshippers” were. They promised “advertisement 
free of cost” so that they should be “known all over the 
country.” 

That southern Methodist leaders were one with pro- i avuey 
men there seems to be no doubt. Lee held that slavery was 
approved by the Bible and protected by the Constitution, and 
that it had advanced civilization here more rapidly than in 
any other country. On the other hand, abolitionism was 
held responsible for retarding the progress of the nation.** 
When Dr. Smith delivered an address at the southern Gene- 
ral Conference of 1854 in favor of slavery, one southern 
editor wrote that it was “a most masterly defense of the 
south and her institutions.”48 Another southerner inter- 
preted Wesley’s “Thoughts on Slavery” as being opposed, 
not to the domestic slave trade, but to the African slave 
trade only.14 And when South Carolina conference followed 
the precedent established by the General Conference of 1808 
and used the Discipline without the section on slavery, the 
Southern Christian Advocate approved. “The souls of men 


246 Eptscopal Methodism and Slavery 


are more important than the dead letter of an obsolete law. 
Nay, the very respect for the Constitution of the Church, 
embodied ir the Discipline which all of us ardently desire 
to see maintained and deepened, demands that the dead fly 
in the pot of precious ointment should. be got out of it, at 
all hazards—by the conservative power of an Annual Con- 
ference brought up in an emergency for self protection, tf 
by no other means.”’}* 

So pro-slavery did the southern Church become that the 
editor of the Memphis Advocate was accused of favoring 
the slave trade, although he was supposed to have advised 
that it was “well to have pens to put slaves in before sold, 
rather than have them kept out of doors exposed to the 
weather and, of course, liable to damage in their health, good 
looks, etc., in consequence of such outdoor exposure.’’!® 
Elliott declared that the southern Methodist Church was 
decidedly pro-slavery. In proof he cited an advertisement 
of an auctioneer in an official paper. This auctioneer desired 
to sell all kinds of property, including slaves. Said Elliott: 
“Can there longer remain a doubt in the mind of any one 
as to the position of this Church on the subject of human 
bondage, when, as in the above instance, her official organs 
advertise for sale in market, like beasts of the stall the souls 
and bodies of men, women and children! No marvel that 
they expunge the old Methodist rule.’’2” 

With a large number of the leaders, both within and 
without the Church, pro-slavery in their sentiments, it was 
only natural that the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
should seek the elimination of the Disciplinary rule on 
slavery. The General Conferences of 1846 and 1850 refused 
to act on such a change because they feared that border 
conferences might return to the fold of the northern Church. 
But during the decade prior to the Civil War southern 
leaders became increasingly desirous of extirpating the 
section of the Discipline which forbade slaveholding of any 
kind. 

The action of official conferences of the Church, South, 
shows an unmistakable trend towards the extreme pro- 
slavery position. In 1854, the General Conference made a 
determined effort to strike out the rule on slavery. But 


Southern Methodism and Slavery 247 


they lacked seven votes of the constitutional two-thirds to 
make such action valid.18 Therefore the rule remained in 
the same words as in 1846;'* and precisely as it was in the 
Discipline of the northern Church, both before and after 
the division took place. But that the sentiment was very 
strong against the retention of the rule may be inferred from 
the interpretation put upon it by the Conference; namely, 
that it referred to the foreign slave trade only. In this 
action they were undoubtedly supported by the secular press 
of the South. One editor wrote: “The Methodist Church 
has thus placed itself upon scriptural foundations upon this 
subject, and deserves, and will receive the commendation of 
the southern people for its bold and manly assertion of the 
apostolic doctrine upon this vexed question in the face of the 
insane clamors of wild fanaticism which has substituted its 
puling philanthropy for the Word of God.’’?° 

In 1857, Alabama conference passed a resolution asking 
the General Conference of 1858 to expunge the General Rule 
forbidding the “buying and selling men, women and children 
with an intention to enslave them,”*! and the bishops were 
requested to present their memorial to the other conferences 
for their approval.2* Western Virginia conference voted, 22 
to 12, to expunge the rule?? The most serious opposition 
was encountered in Kentucky conference, where the vote 
was 43 to 18 in favor of retaining the rule.2* That the more 
southerly conferences were almost unanimously for the 
change is certain from the fact that, of the 1,471 votes cast, 
only 311 were for non-concurrence.?> 

With the sentiment so overwhelmingly for expunction of 
the rule, the General Conference of 1858 proceeded to carry 
out the wishes of the majority. The phraseology of the rule 
was declared to be ambiguous, and it was feared that it 
might “be construed antagonistic to the institution of slavery, 
in regard to which the Church has no right to meddle, except 
in enforcing the duties of masters and servants as set forth 
in the Holy Scriptures.” .The committee urged that the 
General Conference expunge the rule against slavery and 
also withdraw their statement of 1854 that the rule applied 
only to the foreign traffic in slaves. The General Conference 


248 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


responded to the recommendation of the committee by an 
affirmative vote of 140 to 8.76 

Owing to the fact that some conferences had not voted 
on the proposed change previous to the General Conference, 
the latter body considered it necessary to submit the change 
to another vote of the annual conferences. That these readily 
assented to the General Conference action may be easily 
imagined. Even Kentucky conference reversed its vote of 
the previous year and concurred in the expunction of the 
rule by a large majority. When Stevenson attempted to 
have a resolution passed in which the conference should go 
on record against the African slave trade, it was declared 
out of order since the General Conference resolutions 
included an abrogation of their statement of 1854 that the 
rule applied only to the African slave trade. One man 
asked for the privilege of protesting against the expunction 
of the rule and of having his protest entered in the “Jour- 
nal” of the conference. This was permitted, and in 1859 the 
Rev. D. Wilburn presented his reasons against the elimina- 
tion of the rule from the Discipline.?? 


Of the minority who stood so staunchly against further 
concessions to the pro-slavery party, the Rev. D. Stevenson 
was one of the most prominent. He opposed the change in 
the rule because he said the southern Church had virtually 
pledged itself not to make any further concessions to slavery ; 
because, if this concession were granted, then more would 
be asked of the Church by the pro-slavery party; the 
language of the General Conference was considered “too 
non-committal” on the question of re-opening the African 
slave trade; and finally, if the interpretation of the rule made 
in 1854 were correct there was no necessity for a change in 
order to keep on good terms with slaveholders because that 
trafic was outlawed by the United States Government. 
Stevenson represented the few in the South who, just before 
the Civil War, dared to defy slaveholders within and without 
the Church. 

The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, had become 
avowedly pro-slavery. That which had been done by the 
Methodist Church in the South for three-quarters of a 
century without the sanction of the Church was now pro- 


Southern Methodism and Slavery 249 


claimed the official sentiment of the southern Methodist 
Church. Just a half century after the General Conference 
of 1808 passed the resolution by which the Discipline used in 
South Carolina was not to contain the rule on slavery, the 
General Conference of the southern Church completely de- 
stroyed all opposition to slavery. 


Se Pa See ee OS te oo cae 


Nite dl Christian Advocate, Volume XVIII., p. 138, col. 7; August 
7, 1851. 

Nashville and Louisville Christian Advocate, Volume XV., No. 19; 
May 15, 1851. 

Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume VII, p. 54, col. 7; April 
6, 1859. 

Supra, p. 209. 

The Liberator, Volume XXIII., p. 125, col. 1; August 12, 1853. 
Olmstead, Journeys and Explorations in the Cotton Kingdom, 
Volume II., p. 140, footnote. ° 

Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXIV., p. 90, col. 7; July 10, 
1857. 

The Liberator, Volume XXVII., p. 129, cols. 5-6; August 14, 1857. 
Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXII., p. 182, cols. 5-6; 
November 14, 1855. Elliott asked, if this were true, why the 
negroes were not taught to read the Bible, and why the whites 
did not enforce marriage chastity among the slaves. 


. Elliott, South-Western Methodism, pp. 107-8, 
. Ibid., pp. 108-9. 
. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume VIII., p. 66, col. 5; 


April 25, 1860. 


. Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXI., p. 94, col. 3; June 14, 


1854. Cf. Elliott, South-Western Methodism, p. 37 


_Ibid., Volume XXIIL, p. 162, col. 6; October 8, 1856. 
. Pittsburg Christian Advocate, Volume XVIITI., p. 209, cols. 1-2; 


July 8, 1851. Cf. Southern Christian Advocate, Volume XIV., p. 
26, cols. 3-4; July 19, 1850. 


. Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXII., p. 27, col. 1; February 


14, 1855. 


. Ibid, Volume XXV., 102, col. 6: June 30, 1858. 
| Nashville Christian Uivoonts: Volume XXIL, July 15, 1858. 
: The Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Hpiscopal Church, 


South, 1854, p. 30. 


. Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXV., p. 94, col. 5; 


June 14, 1854. 


. Elliott, South-Western Methodism, pp. 108, 110, 
. Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXIV., p. 6, col. 7; January 


14, 1857. 


. Ibid., p. 162, col. 6; October 14, 1857. 
. Stevenson, Journal, Volume I., pp. 152-3. In another source the 


vote of Kentucky conference is given as 44 to 16 (Western 
Christian Advocate, Volume XXIV., p. 162, col. 6; October 14, 1857) 
Stevenson’s whole attitude was very judicious; he was, moreover, 
a careful observer. This difference is not important, but I am 
inclined to accept his figures. 


. Journals of the General Conference of the M. EB, Church, South, 


26. 
27. 


1858, p. 443. 

Elliott, South-Western Methodism, p. 110. 

Stevenson, Journal, Volume I., pp. 160-63. Stevenson’s account is 
worth preserving. He says “Ag secretary, I called the roll. Var- 
fous members of Conference took occasion to explain their position. 
While calling the roll I jotted down heads of such objections to 
the expunction of the rule as occurred to me, and at the proper 
time urged them. They were in substance these: First, that at 


250 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


the time of the division of the Church in 1844-5 we had virtually 
pledged ourselves to retain the rule, affirming that it was not our 
purpose to encourage a more pro-slavery spirit that then existed 
in the Southern portion of the Church—Secondly, that I knew not 
when we would end if we broke down the barrier to an extreme 
pro-slavery sentiment—that some of the members of the recent 
General Conference at Nashville had expressed themselves favor- 
able to a re-opening of the African Slave trade, and that that 
sentiment seemed to be spreading in the church, and that the 
retention of the rule seemed to be necessary to prevent its pre- 
vailing generally in the South; Thirdly, that the language of the 
General Conference was too non-committal on that subject, and. 
Fourthly, that we hitherto interpreted the rule to refer to the 
African, and not to the domestic, slave trade, and that if that 
interpretation was the true one, there could be no necessity for 
the expunction of the rule, in order to avoid offending the sensi- 
bilities of the members of the church who were involved in slave- 
holding, so long as the African slave trade was prohibited by the 
Constitution and laws of the land. In concluding my remarks— 
which were more extended than those of any other member of 
the Conference, I said that while I might not agree with all the 
views of the people in the north, I certainly did not like the 
tendencies in the South and that I had gone as far in a pro- 
slavery direction, as I expected to go—‘Not another step will I go 
in that direction,’ were, I think, my words. Had the rule not 
been in the Discipline, I might probably not have been concerned 
to have it there. But once there, and in view of our past and. 
prospective history as a Church, I regarded the reasons given by 
the enemies of the rule as insufficient for its expunction. 

“The Conference had turned completely about in one year—The 
vote being taken, resulted in showing a large majority in favor 
of the expunction of the rule. Of course many of those who had 
voted against its expunction the year before had, from some cause, 
probably from the overwhelming influence of the General Confer- 
ence vote and the position of the Church papers, been induced to 
change their ground.”’ 


CHAPTER XX 


THE NORTHERN INVADERS 


The excitement among southerners—and especially Metho- 
dists—because of northern Methodist attacks was intense. 
But that which aroused the bitterest antagonism in the South, 
both within and without the Methodist Church, was the 
“invasion” of their territory by northern Methodists. Many 
laymen migrated to the South and Southwest and in several 
instances asked that northern preachers be sent to them. 
The very fact that the northern Methodist Church claimed 
to be anti-slavery led to the proscription of all members of 
that denomination. Resolutions of New England and other 
conferences were cited to show that northern Methodists 
were as truly abolitionists as Garrison himself. 

Radical Methodists in the North undoubtedly contributed 
to the antagonism of southerners towards northern preachers 
and: laymen in their communities. H. C. Atwater, of 
Providence conference, condemned northern preachers in 
Missouri because they were not as radical as himself. He 
also urged that no more missionary supplies should be sent 
to the Southwest until preachers from the North adopted 
the most extreme anti-slavery principles. His statements 
were published in a pro-slavery paper at Hannibal, Missouri, 
and caused northerners considerable trouble Another 
prominent Methodist abolitionist who aroused the wrath of 
the pro-slavery element was William Hosmer, the editor of 
the Northern Independent. His two chief contentions were 
that slaveholders could not be Christians — provided that 
slavery was a sin; and that a slave who refused to fight for 
his independence and his rights was “not worthy ot free- 
dom,” and could not be considered a Christian if he continued 
in slavery after his conversion. Since this was an appeal to 
the slaves to rise against their masters, members and 
ministers of the northern Church naturally suffered as a 
result.? 


25% 


252 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, was officially 
opposed to the intrusion of northern preachers. Editors of 
the Advocates at Charleston and Richmond urged that all 
denominations hold the same views as the Methodist, and 
suggested that no church with contrary views on the question 
of slavery should be tolerated and supported by southern 
people? Further, the views of Bishop Pierce were given 
the widest publicity by the southern Methodist press. The 
bishop suggested that there was plenty of room in their own 
territory for northern preachers to work and that they ought 
not to come where they were not wanted.* By 1860, Pierce 
had become even more radical against northern Methodists. 
Writing from California in October of that year, he declared 
that they came “into the slave States as open, declared 
enemies of the institutions of the people” and that according 
to their own statement they could “not be faithful to God 
without aiding and abetting runaway slaves. They must 
sympathize with arson, blood, and murder, insurrection and 
carnage.” Further he said: “For these reasons, abolitionists 
can not and ought not to be tolerated in the Southern States. 
No quarantine will justify their admission, no fumigation 
can disinfect them. Rank, rotten with the foul virus of an 
incurable disease, foes of God and man, spies and traitors 
of their country and their kind, let them stay where they 
belong!” 

That leaders of the Methodist Episcopal Church who were 
responsible for the missionary endeavor in the South and 
Southwest had no intention of destroying slavery in that 
section or assisting any slave to escape from his master is 
beyond question. To meet the statements of radicals like 
Atwater, Durbin wrote several articles for northern 
Methodist papers. In these he maintained that “the apostles 
admitted and retained slaveholders in the Churches which 
they organized and governed; yet under a discipline sub- 
versive of slavery”; and that the churches which followed 
did likewise.6 Bishop Morris disclaimed all knowledge of, 
or responsibility for, Atwater’s letter and the principles 
which it set forth. He declared that, while the Methodist 
Episcopal Church was “opposed to all sorts of wickedness” 
—in which was presumably included slavery, although the 


The Northern Invaders 253 


bishop did not specifically say that either he or his followers 
were anti-slavery—they were always obedient to the civil 
authorities. He asserted that the reason for sending northern 
preachers into the South and Southwest was simply that 
certain groups desired to bring salvation to as many sinners 
as possible. ‘Whoever charges us with sending them for 
any political or sinister purpose, or to accomplish any object 
other than to feed the flock of Christ and save the souls of 
the people, does us great injustice.’ Against the conten- 
tion of Dr. Watson, editor of the Northwestern Christian 
Advocate, that the work of the northern Church should be 
discontinued in slaveholding states, Elliott asserted that this 
was a most promising field and that the holding of these 
places by the Methodist Episcopal Church kept the people 
from becoming wholly pro-slavery.® 

The hatred of southerners for northern preachers was 
concentrated upon conferences which assembled in southern 
territory, and upon the boldest missionaries. Thus there was 
considerable opposition to the meeting of Kentucky confer- 
ence in 1859. A correspondent of a radical pro-slavery 
paper declared that the twenty-four ministers and two 
thousand four hundred and ninety-six laymen were attempt- 
ing to abolish slavery in the state. He therefore urged that 
Methodists from the North should be driven out. The 
editor of this paper, the Cynthiana News, approved the 
suggestion of his correspondent. The ministers were called 
a “band of incendiaries” who were meeting “for the purpose 
of perfecting their plans of abolitionism.’”’ The editor con- 
cluded: “We would as soon believe that the people of 
Germantown would permit a convention of horse-thieves to 
be held there, as allow men entertaining such unconstitu- 
tional and traitorous principles, as those who belong to the 
Conference. . . .The people in that section have driven 
others out, and we hope they will give a cold reception to 
this Northern Conference, which is headed. by Bishop 
Simpson.” But, in this instance, the people refused to rally 
against the northern Methodists.’ 

In 1855, Missouri conference was to have met at Inde- 
pendence. So great was the opposition to northern Metho- 
dists that a public meeting was called and resolutions adopted, 


254 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


in which it was stated that it was deemed inexpedient for 
the conference to assemble at that place because of its 
nearness to Kansas and the consequent excitement, and that 
if the meeting were persisted in they would refuse to be 
responsible for the results which might follow. The minis- 
ters therefore decided to hold the conference in St. Louis. 
Scriptural authority for such a move was found by members 
of Ebenezer Church in that city, who said the change would 
be “in accordance with the pacific precept of the Great Head 
of the Church to his first disciples—‘If they persecute you 
in one city, flee to another.’ ”?° 


A week before Arkansas conference met at Bonham, 
Texas, on March 11, 1859, a meeting of citizens was held. 
at Millerwood, where northern Methodists were censured 
because they held principles “in violation of the laws of 
their country.” A Bonham editor published an account of 
the meeting and warned northern Methodists against a 
possible visitation on the part of pro-slavery citizens. On 
the first day of the conference, two southern Methodist 
preachers, Dickson and Porter, were present “as observers, 
spies, and reporters.” The following day, citizens of the 
vicinity met in Bonham to consider their future action. 


The purpose of the meeting was to condemn northern 
Methodists as abolitionists and the conference as inimicable 
to the interests of the South. Resolutions of northern con- 
ferences were read to prove the radicalism of the northern 
Church. Judge Roberts, a southern Methodist, asserted 
that the two Methodist bodies differed only on the question 
of slavery. While he said he “was not in favor of mob 
law,’ yet the people were urged to deal with the situation 
as it required. A southern minister, A. W. Brown, also 
addressed the citizens and expressed his pleasure that decis- 
ive action was about to be taken against a Church which, 
he declared, was “abolition to the core.” A committee, of 
which Judge Roberts was a member, drew up a preamble 
and seven resolutions against the “secret foe’ which was in 
the community. Since the teachings of the northern Church 
were declared distasteful to that community, the northerners 
were ordered to discontinue them. The motto of the group . 
was ‘“‘Peaceably 1f we can, forcibly if we must,” and they 


The Northern Invaders 255 


united to suppress the public or private expression of any 
abolition doctrines in the community. A committee com- 
posed of fifty people of whom Brown was one, was charged 
with the responsibility of conveying the resolutions to the 
Methodist conference. 


Sunday morning, about two hundred pro-slavery men 
rode to the church where the bishop was preaching the 
sermon. They were “armed with revolvers and bowie- 
knives,” thus giving the impression that they were ready to 
take extreme action. Bishop Janes was interrupted, while 
Judge Roberts read the resolutions of the meeting of the 
previous day and commented upon them. The conference 
was given only two hours to return an answer. The com- 
pany then withdrew and the service continued. At its 
conclusion, the conference decided to refer the question to 
the laymen for their decision. The pro-slavery group was 
informed of their decision and the southerners dispersed. 
On the following day, the southerners re-assembled, heard 
the report of the committee and listened to numerous 
speeches. The burden of the remarks of some of the 
speakers seemed to be that northern Methodists were suc- 
ceeding in building up a stronger membership than that of 
the Church, South.!! 

As to the responsibility for the action taken against the 
conference, southern pro-slavery men assumed that fully. 
But they denied that the people composing the company 
was in fact a mob. However, it is impossible to believe 
that this “citizens’ meeting” was anything other than a mob, 
even though it was composed of leaders of the community. 
In the North, the southern Methodist Church was given 
the credit for the insult to northern Methodists. Bishop 
Janes did not blame the southern Church alone but only 
to the extent that the Church approved and justified the 
mob. He believed, however, that southern Methodist leaders 
would “at least hold the clothes of those who threw the 
stones.”’!* 

It is true that the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
did not officially urge citizens of Texas to threaten Arkansas 
conference. But that leaders of that Church ever raised 
their voices against the mobs does not appear. - On the 


256 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


other hand, the editor of the Texas Christian Advocate 
approved of everything that was done and said: “We did 
do it, and should do it again; if that is mobocracy, all 
concerned are welcome to make the most of it.’”4% And, 
writing relative to this trouble and the protest of northern 
Methodist papers, the editor of the Nashville Christian 
Advocate advised: “Preach the gospel, brethren, the whole 
gospel, and nothing but the gospel, and you will not be 
molested anywhere. in the South. Confine yourself to this 
one thing, and you are safe in Texas, It is not as gospel 
ministers that you meet trouble, but as anti-slavery agitators 
—as those who propose and pledge themselves to extirpate 
a civil institution delicately and yet powerfully interwoven 
with the structure of Southern society. A revival is what is 
wanted, not an insurrection.”?4 

It was especially upon individual ministers that south- 
erners wreaked their vengeance.® In 1853, Charles F. 
Kelly escaped from the penitentiary at Ft. Madison, lowa. 
February 13, a Methodist minister, Charles H. Kelly, was 
arrested at Chambersburg, Missouri, by a man named 
Tradue, who claimed to be the Marshall of the State of 
Missouri. Kelly was tied hand and foot, and, without being 
given an opportunity to prepare for the journey, was 
compelled to start on the trip to Fort Madison. A fellow- 
minister finally persuaded the rufhans to permit him to give 
Kelly additional clothing. Arriving at Fort Madison, the 
Missourians took him to a hotel, where he was left in chains 
until the following morning. When prison officials promptly 
declared that his captors had the wrong man, Kelly was 
released. From February to September, his health, as a 
result of exposure and barbarous treatment, continued to 
weaken, and on the seventeenth of the latter month, he died.1® 

In 1849, Mark Robertson was appointed to Batesville, 
Missouri. After the conference adjourned, Bishop Janes 
received letters from Batesville, where a public meeting, 
presided over by a southern Methodist, had protested against 
the sending of another northern preacher to that charge and 
declared that “if they did violence must follow, and they 
must account for the blood shed.” Robertson had moved 
two hundred miles to reach his appointment and determined 


The Northern Invaders 257 


to stay. His first service was well advertised and he spoke 
to a large audience. The following morning, the court seems 
to have encouraged the pro-slavery element to meet. There 
it was decided that Robertson must quit the country at once 
—‘peaceably if he would, forcibly if need be.” When the 
preacher refused to move voluntarily, he was not molested 
during the remainder of the year. That he had many sup- 
porters at this time appears from the fact that over one 
hundred people joined his church in one year.1? 


By 1853 the pro-slavery party had increased their attacks 
upon Robertson. Mr. Cochran, editor of the Batesville 
Eagle, had the active support of preachers and members of 
the southern Methodist Church when he claimed that 
Robertson was an abolitionist and interested in the under- 
ground railroad, by which slaves were aided in escaping 
from their masters. Robertson was refused permission to 
correct the errors in the editor’s statement. The minister 
revenged himself by publicly refuting the charges. Cochran 
threatened to whip him, but his purpose was never carried 
out.1® The following year, Robertson was still further 
persecuted. John Cole, a presiding elder of the southern 
Methodist Church, gave an address before three thousand 
people to show that the northern Church was radically anti- 
slavery. For three hours Robertson listened to Cole. An 
unsuccessful attempt was made to keep him from replying 
to this unjustifiable attack. The retort of Robertson to 
Cole’s charges was that Cole had been an Englishman, had 
later lived in the North and finally had come to Missouri. 
Since he proved to be a “turncoat,” Robertson claimed that 
it was probable that he was insincere in his statements. 
Although there was a distinct lack of sound argument, the 
people seemed to be satisfied with the reply. However, the 
work of the northern Church did not prosper because many 
members, convinced that they could not enjoy their privileges 
under the Constitution, migrated to new territory “or” 
returned to their former homes.!9 

Robertson had been threatened with severe punishment if 
he did not leave the country. In 1855, W. H. Wiley was 
actually run out of the country because he was a minister of 
the northern Methodist Church. John A. Tuggle, a member 


258 Eptscopal Methodism and Slavery 


of the southern Methodist Church, declared that Wiley had 
made certain statements in a private conversation relative to 
the situation in Kansas which marked him as an abolitionist. 
When two negroes escaped from their masters a short time 
afterwards, he was charged with being the leader of a group 
that urged slaves to flee from the country. He was captured 
by armed men, his personal effects, including his private 
letters, scanned for possible anti-slavery documents, and 
finally he was given seven days to leave the State. Wiley 
was told that the laws were not severe enough and that 
southerners had taken matters into their own hands. The 
result was that he removed from Missouri to free territory 
where his liberty of speech and action would not be cur- 
tailed.?° 

Anthony Bewley came to Missouri from Virginia and 
Tennessee. In 1843 he was admitted into Missouri confer- 
ence and two years later decided to remain in the northern 
Methodist Church. From that time forward until his tragic 
death he was the victim of persecution.24, In 1850, while 
living at Ebenezer, the trustees of South-western High 
School refused to allow his children to attend school “till a 
meeting.of the curators and a decision be made thereon.” 
After an interview with the teacher, temporary permission 
was granted to Bewley’s children to receive instruction. The 
fact that this school was “under the supervision of the 
Southern Methodists” is especially significant. At one point 
about one hundred people signed a petition asking him not 
to preach in that community.2? In a doctrinal debate of 
1854, Bewley was charged with being an abolitionist, which 
was considered by many to be conclusive evidence that not 
only his doctrines but his morals were unacceptable.*8 

In 1860 he was appointed to work in Texas for the third 
year. That summer it was rumored that he and a companion 
had been responsible for the burning of several towns and 
poisoning wells.2* So great was the cry against him that he 
decided to go to Missouri. There he was overtaken by an 
Arkansas mob who took him back to Forth Worth, Texas. 
He freely predicted that he would be hanged, whether or 
not he had disobeyed the law of the State. After a few 
hours’ sleep at Fort Worth he was taken by a mob and 


The Northern Invaders 259 


hanged where several negroes had previously been murdered 
by similar irresponsible organizations. 

One author denies that northern Methodists were hanged 
by southern Methodists.2® In so far as Methodists were 
members of mobs they acted on their own responsibility. 
While some southern Methodist papers did not sanction 
lynching, they did not condemn the mobs nearly as much 
as they did those who were murdered or driven from the 
slave states. But the’ Texas Christian Advocate was so 
extreme as to assert that there were “cases in which Lynch- 
law is expedient, necessary, just.” Bewley was considered 
a lawless character who merited his fate.27 With official 
papers of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, either 
supporting the murderers or else placing the blame upon the 
northerners, it is not strange that there should have been 
outrages committed in slaveholding territory. 

The reaction among the people of the North may be 
imagined. Even the conservative Bishop Morris condemned, 
in unmeasured language, the murderers of Bewley.*8 Con- 
trary to the Constitution of the Nation, the right of free 
speech and of peaceable assembly had been denied to north- 
ern Methodists, chiefly because they were not members of 
the recognized pro-slavery Church. By a system of intimi- 
dation, persecution, social ostracism and murder, northern 
Methodists had lost their fundamental rights. 





Elliott, South-Western Methodism, pp. 43-4. 

Ibid., pp. 57-8. 

Ibid., pp. 95-6. 

Ibid., pp. 94-5. 

Ibid., pp. 149-50. 

Ibid., pp. 58-9. 

Ibid., pp. 62-3. 

Ibid., pp. 63-6. 

Ibid., pp. 200-201. 

0. Ibid., pp. 68-71. Cf. The Liberator, Volume XXV., p. 149, col. 6; 
September 24, 1855. Said Garrison: ‘In view of this lynch law 
religious ostracism, how pertinent is the motto, ‘No union with 
slaveholders religiously,’ as well as politically.’’ 

11. Elliott, South-Western Methodism, pp. 126-32. 

12. Ridgeway, Life of Bishop Janes, pp. 227-8. 

13. Elliott, South-Western Methodism, p. 142. 

14. Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XXTII., June 2, 1859. 

15. Space permits only a few of the many accounts of outrages com- 
mitted without sanction of law, and many times without any reel 
justification, even from a pro-slavery viewpoint. 

16. Elliott, South-Western Methodism, pp. 32-3. 

UT bias Di .2T% 

tea tpid. Di si. 


KAO CONIA CACO Ne 


260 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


19. Ibid., pp. 34-5. 

20. Ibid., pp. 46-51. 

21. Ibid., pp. 21-2. 

22. Ibid., pp. 28-9. 

23) bids, /D.Wie+ 

24. Ibid., pp. 151, 154. 

25. Ibid., pp. 149-99. 

26. Leftwich, Martyrdom in Missouri, Volume I., pp. 150 ff. 
27. Elliott, South-Western Methodism, p. 189. 

28. Ibid., pp. 185-7. 


PART IV 
LOOKING TOWARDS CIVIL WAR 


oy 
PA) 
’ } 


x i 
Rane 


nh tis Ra sine: ne ri ns 

AO ae Laat NS vam 

te ha) i} ay ies MR 
a . mea he be), 
RMON ie ith, Ng 


he 
+ 
\" 


y or re Ae) : 
RUDY 
"ig 7 “s 


} bt 
Wey 

i} ie wep! 
eye 





CHAPTER XXI1 


THE COMPROMISE OF 1850 


When, by means of the Compromise of 1850, Clay and 
Webster sought to avert the threatened division of the 
Nation, the Bill immediately claimed the attention of Metho- 
dist leaders of both sections. At first, the support of the Con- 
promise was almost unanimous. While it was still being 
debated, the editor of Zion’s Herald commended two of 
Clay’s speeches... The editor of the Nashville Christian 
Advocate wrote: “We mention with pleasure the manly, 
frank, independent, and patriotic course of Mr. Webster 

we do admire his compromising spirit in this 
hour of peril, and mark with unbounded pleasure his love 
for the Union, and the boldness with which he steps forward 
to arrest the spirit of fanaticism, discord, and strife.” 

But northern opinion rapidly changed. He who had 
commended Clay in February, declared in August, 1850 that 
“if our leading statesmen — our Clays and Websters — had 
boldly rebuked the culpable, insurrectionary menaces of the 
Southern demagogues, and magnanimously asserted the in- 
tegrity of the Constitution, instead of whining and succumb- 
ing to Southern threats,” the men who had threatened the 
Union’s destruction would have been silenced. A month 
later, the same writer expressed his conviction that the day 
had passed “in which a politician who succumbs to the South 
can expect to be sustained by the people of the free States; 
they will send no more pro-slavery men or “‘doughfaces’ to 
Congress.” Even after the death of Webster, two years 
later, the editor had not recovered from the shock of Web- 
ster’s speech which was considered the greatest mistake 
of Webster’s life.® 

Matthew Simpson, editor of the Western Christian Advo- 
cate, subjected the Compromise measure to what was probably 
the most searching analysis given it by any northern Metho- 
dist. The chief argument advanced in favor of Clay’s pro- 
posal was that, unless such an accommodation were arranged, 


263 


264 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


the country faced disunion. But Simpson scoffed at such 
reasoning, and declared that there was no indication of so 
great a catastrophe. He believed that the pro-slavery party 
desired to introduce slavery into New Mexico, and that the 
South had raised the cry of disunion to frighten the North. 
He also charged that northern politicians who voted with 
the South were to be rewarded with important offices. Poli- 
ticians had warned his paper to keep silent but Simpson re- 
plied: ‘Gentlemen of the political school, you may muzzle 
the political press if you can, but the religious press shall - 
be free, and for its support we shall throw ourselves upon the 
country.”® 

In October, 1850, Simpson considered what came to be the 
most objectionable features of the Compromise. He pre- 
sented five objections to the Fugitive Slave Bill: (1) It 
denied trial by jury. The fugitive could not testify in his 
own defense, but on affidavit of the claimant, the court was 
authorized to give the alleged owner a certificate of owner- 
ship. (2) The writ of habeas corpus was refused. Thus a 
dark complexioned white man might be turned over to a 
slave-hunter and there was no process by which he could be 
recovered, even though he were proved to be a white man. 
(3) The law offered a direct bribe, inasmuch as the judge in 
each case was to receive five dollars if he declared the negro 
free and ten dollars if he adjudged him a slave and gave the 
claimant an order by which the slave might be carried back 
to the South. (4) The people would be required to pay for 
the return of fugitive slaves. For, if the owner or kidnapper 
made affidavit that he feared the rescue of the slave or alleged 
slave, the commissioner was required to employ all neces- 
sary aid to return the negro to the state from which he had 
fled. The expense of such aid was to be paid from the United 
States Treasury. It seemed reasonable to suppose that this 
would be the normal procedure and that the burden of ex- 
pense would be borne by the public rather than by the slave’s 
owner or kidnapper. It was intimated that the law would 
give employment to many “worthy” men. (5) The people 
were commanded to assist in the capture of those accused 
of being escaped slaves. If desired, even ministers could be 
drafted for such service on the Sabbath day, though it might 
interfere with a religious service.’ 


The Compromise of 1850 265 


Simpson did not object to a law which would enforce the 
provisions of the Constitution. Said he: “If these enact- 
ments are made in a fair spirit — if they secure the free 
against the kidnapper, while they arrest the fugitive, we have 
no word to offer in opposition.”® But he warned Congress 
against going further. “If they go beyond this, a ‘higher 
law;’ disliked by some Congressmen, but dwelling in the 
bosoms of a Christian people, will render them comparatively 
nugatory.”8 He opposed violence. Christians might suffer 
the consequences of disobedience to the law but not resist 
it. Resistance to the law meant a mob. He therefore advised 
a Christian “to use all moral influence to change the odious 
features of exceptionable laws — let him speak freely by the 
tongue, the press and the ballot box, but never let him resist.”® 

The response to Simpson’s editorials varied according to 
the views of his critics towards slavery. One man wrote: 
“How glad I am to see a man at the head of our Church paper 
who has the nerve to do right.”2° But his arraignment of 
Congress was displeasing to those who supported the Bill. 
W. J. Brown, editor of the State Sentinel of Indiana, and a 
supporter of the Bill, spoke against the editorial which ana- 
lyzed the Compromise. “We have always admired Dr. 
Simpson for his eloquence in the pulpit and the simplicity 
and beauty of his style. But divinity, not law, has been his 
study. We shall review his article in the spirit of Christian 
forbearance.”4 

The reports from the North were sufficient to prove that 
the Fugitive Slave Law was unpopular among Methodists.” 
One writer declared that so extreme a measure would unite the 
North against slavery even as the South was united 1n its 
favor. “Demagogues and doughfaces will shrink away before 
the burning demands of the people of the north for the repeal 
of this law. The south has overacted the matter, and the 
demagogues of the north will be rebuked.”** From New 
England! and Detroit!® came news of the greatest excitement 
as a result of the enactment. It was considered unjust, des- 
tructive of the right of trial by jury and the writ of habeas 
corpus, and therefore highly objectionable. In Chicago, the 
Methodist churches contributed modest sums, ranging from 
$2.70 to $28.00 for the purpose of aiding a certain John 
Freeman in his fight against being returned to the South.1® 


266 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


In Pennsylvania, when James Kennedy attempted to return 
to the South with a fugitive slave, he was murdered on the 
streets of Lancaster, Pennsylvania “by a mob encouraged, 
if not instigated, by an eminent minister of the Methodist 
Church.”?” 

Simpson’s statement that “a law enacting a crime is, by 
the force of natural reason, null and void,”11 found a ready 
response in northern conferences. Maine conference, in 
1850, resolved not to compromise with slavery in any way 
whatsoever.18 The following year they declared that they 
owed obedience to God first of all, and that the Fugitive Slave 
Law, being contrary to the law of God, did not merit their 
support.19 Three years later they urged the repeal of the 
law ;7° and in 1855 they again pledged themselves to seek its 
removal from the statute books of the nation, since they 
considered it “an unrighteous usurpation of authority, un- 
authorized by the Constitution of the United States and con- 
trary to the word of God and the precepts of Christianity.?? 

Vermont conference condemned the law and those res- 
ponsible for it. They claimed to be good citizens but affirmed 
that when the laws of the land were contrary to the law of 
God, they would resist any attempt to coerce them.2* Fast 
Maine conference declared with emphasis: “That as Minis- 
ters of Christ, we will never relax our efforts in behalf of the 
oppressed — WE WILL NEVER BE SILENT SPEC- 
TATORS OF THEIR WRONGS AND SUFFERINGS, 
and by the grace of God, WE WILL NEVER LEAVE 
OUR MASTER’S WORK TO HUNT DOWN THE 
WEARY AND TOIL-WORN STRANGER WITHIN 
OUR GATES, NOR IN: ANY. WAY (ASSIS Tague 
COUNTENANCE HIS RETURN TO HOPELESS 
BONDAGE.”*3 Other conferences took similar action ;*4 
in fact, within the writer’s knowledge, there was no dissenting 
voice in the chorus of denunciation which continually in- 
creased in northern conferences. 

There can be no question that northern Methodists hoped 
to destroy the force of the Fugitive Slave Law. The editor 
of Zion's Herald wrote: “We hope that from the outset this 
enormous statute will be found a nullity—dead letter, doubly 
dead and buried beneath the curses of a free and Christian 
people. So shall we treat it, and we shall teach men so.’’25 


The Compromise of 1850 267 


The Rev. Mr. Robie, editor of the Buffalo Christian Advocate, 
agreed: ‘“‘We can only regard this law, passed by the late 
Congress, as one of the most accursed offsprings of one of the 
most depraved bodies that ever met to legislate for the des- 
tinies of the nation. . . we sustain the ‘higher law’, and 
abominate such legislation without apology.”?° With such 
advice coming from men in places of influence it is not sur- 
prising that there should be resistance to the law. Northern 
Methodists refused, as did those in the South, to obey a law 
which was obnoxious to them. 

While northern Methodists condemned unsparingly the 
enactment of Congress, those in the South supported it. By 
the editor of the Richmond Christian Advocate it was con- 
sidered “a wise and just provision for giving efficiency to an 
article of the Constitution of the United States.” It was held 
that the legislators never anticipated the effect it would have in 
the north. “It works well in catching slaves,—but it has 
made a great many fugitives from sanity. Insane ravings 
against it are almost as common as the subjects whose wander- 
ings it was intended to prevent.”*? Again, the same writer 
believed that the law was very conservative and perhaps “‘the 
only link in the golden chain which binds our National Con- 
federacy in glorious union. If this last link be broken, our 
Federal Union will crumble in ruins.” 


Two groups in the North were the targets of southern 
Methodists. Theodore Parker had condemned the city of 
Boston for permitting Simms, a fugitive slave, to be taken 
back to slavery. Herod, Nero, Dominic, Torquemada, George 
Jeffries — none of these was considered as foul as those 
who, for ten dollars, were willing to deprive a human be- 
ing of his freedom.”® But Parker was not the only master 
of bitter invective. For the editor of the Nashville Christian 
Advocate denounced the great abolitionist for his extreme 
condemnation of the craven spirit of Boston officials. In 
part he said: “It is said that there is a difference and a choice 
in. spoiled eggs; if so, we think we have found about the 
worst one in the nest, in the following which we take from 
an Eastern paper. If abolitionism itself can stand such a 
nauseous dose of furious treason without vomiting forth 
the guilty author it must be possessed of the stomach of a 
hyena. Begotten of ignorance upon the body of hypocrisy, 


268 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


fanaticism, blind and BLACK, starts forth, at whose pollut- 
ed shrine Parker, Garrison & Co. are the high priesthood. A 
noble band, truly, and as innocent, faithful, and worthy as 
their great prototypes, Benedict Arnold and Judas Iscariot. 
Such men ought to be elevated, lifted up high in the world, 
that they may receive their deserts; the elevation of Haman 
would not be a too lofty one upon which to exhibit them to 
their admiring countrymen; but alas! virtue like to theirs 
does not always meet its reward in this bad world, especially 
in the North, — In the South they might stand a better 
chance.”° 


The second group was composed of northern Methodist 
editors. Writing of these men, and especially of the editor 
of Zion’s Herald, the editor of the Nashville Christian Advo- 
cate declared: “These men are guilty of treason.”8! The 
same writer, after printing many expressions on the Fugitive 
Slave Law from northern papers, which counseled disobed- 
ience of the law, said that his only purpose was to inform the 
South so that they would “know how their rights are regarded 
at the north, and what kind of appeals are made to the relig- 
ious community by these saintly editors and writers, whose 
Bible and Discipline teach them ‘to be subject to the powers 
that be.’ If these men can influence a majority at the north, 
our days as a confederated republic are numbered.’’? 


The fact that northern Methodists were disobedient to the 
law of the land was especially noted by southern Metho- 
dist editors. An editorial in the St. Louts Christian Advocate 
denounced the interference of the northern press with the en- 
forcement of the law and concluded: “Let then the senti- 
ment be as immovable as the eternal granite of the Rocky 
mountains, that law must be and shall be preserved. Let the 
bold and reckless nullifiers of law and disorganizers of gov- 
ernment understand that the government has resources which 
it can and will bring into requisition, if needful, for the pro- 
tection of its citizens.’’*? The decision of northern Methodists 
to obey the “higher law” was also bitterly censured. One 
editor wrote: “Who made them judges in this matter? Who 
clothed red-mouthed fanaticism in the habiliments of the 
‘woolsack’, and mounted the high headed monster upon the 
‘higher’ bench of a spiritual judiciary there, with the tolerance 
of the Inquisition, to arraign before it and sit in judgment 


The Compromise of 1850 269 


upon the peace-promoting laws of the land?’—those same 
laws too, under whose kind protection, unfortunately, that 
foul demon, which inspires them, is allowed to live. . . 
We look upon the unfortunate Benedict Arnold as a generous 
and noble gentlemen compared with some of the more modern 
traitors.’’4 


The Compromise of 1850 increased the ill-feeling be- 
tween the two Methodist Churches. We have seen that 
southerners did not propose to obey a law which they con- 
sidered contrary to their interests. Neither life nor property 
of northerners was safe in slaveholding states. But southern- 
ers might protest that they had only followed the example 
of northerners in disobedience to the law. For, before 
southerners committed their most serious crimes against 
northern Methodist preachers, northern Methodists had re- 
fused to obey the Fugitive Slave Law and thus placed them- 
selves, legally at least, on the same plane as those they later 
condemned for outrages committed in southern territory. 
Not law, but passion, mob spirit, and the “higher law” were 
supreme. 


Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXI,, p. 30, col. 1; 

February 20, 1850. 

Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XIV., No. 22; March 29, 1850, 

Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXI., p. 126, col. 1; 

August 7, 1850. 

Ibid., p. 146, col. 1; September 11, 1850. 

Ibid., Volume XXIII., p. 174, col. 2; November 3, 1852. 

Crooks, Life of Bishop Simpson, pp. 262-5. 

Wuceen a Christian Advocate, Volume XVII, p. 162, col. 3; October 

» 1850. 

Ibid., p. 154, col. 3; September 25, 1850. 

Ibid., p. 182, col. 3; November 14, 1850. 

10. Crooks, Life of Bishop Simpson, p. 265. 

wir ibids  pwi267. 

12. Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXI., p. 166, col. 1; 
October 16, 1850. 

13. nent Christian Advocate, Volume XVII., p. 170, col. 3; October 
3, 1850. 

14, Ibid., p. 174, col. 4; October 31, 1850. 

15. Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXI., p. 170, col. 1; 
October 238, 1850. 

16. Sera e Christian Advocate, Volume II., p. 39, col. 3; March 
, 1854. 

17. Tyler, Memoir of Roger B. Taney, p. 131. 

18. Minutes of the Maine Conference, p. 12. 

19. Ibid., 1851, p. 12. 

20. Ibid., 1854, pp. 11-12. 

21. Ibid., 1855, p. 12. 

22. Minutes of the Vermont Conference, 1851, pp. 17-18. 

23. Minutes of the East Maine Conference, 1852, pp. 22-3. 

24. These conferences were Erie, North Indiana and Wisconsin. 


Rte Pen eo 


270 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


25. 
26. 
27. 
28. 
29. 


Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXI., p. 154, col. 1; 
September 25, 1850. 

Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XIV., No. 52; October 25, 
1850. 

Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume IV (New Series), p. 170, 
col. 3; October 24, 1850. 

Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXI., p. 190, col. 3; 
November 27, 1850. 

Bartlett, Modern Agitators, pp. 33-5. The passage from Parker’s 
speech is as follows: ‘‘Where shall I find a parallel with men who 
will do such a deed—do it in Boston? I will open the tombs and 
bring up the most hideous tyrants from the dead. Come, brood of 
monsters, let me bring you up from the deep damnation of the 
graves wherein your hated memories continue for all time their 
never ending rot. Come, birds of evil omen! come, ravens, vul- 
tures, carrion crows, and see the spectacle! come, see the meet- 
of congenial souls! I will disturb, disquiet, and bring up the 
greatest monsters of the human race! Tremble not, women; 
tremble not, children, tremble not, men! ‘They are all dead! They 
cannot harm you now! Fear the living, not the dead! 

“Come hither, Herod, the wicked. Thou that didst seek after 
that young child’s life, and destroyedst the innocents! Let me 
look on thy face! No, go! Thou wert a heathen! Go, lie with 
the innocents thou hast massacred. Thou are too good for this 
company! 

“Come, Nero! thou awful Roman emperor, come up! No, thou 
wast drunk with power, schooled in Roman depravity. Thou hadst, 
besides, the example of thy fancied gods. Go, wait another day. 
I will seek a worser man. 

“Come hither, St. Dominic! come Torquemada!—fathers of the 
Inquisition! merciless monsters, seek your equal here. No; pass 
by. You are no companions for such men as these, You were the 
servants of atheistic popes, of cruel kings. Go to, and get you 
gone. Another time I may have work for you,—now lie there, 
and persevere to rot. You are not yet quite wicked and corrupt 
enough for this comparison. Go, get you gone, lest the sun turn 
back at sight of ye! 

“Come up, thou heap of wickedness, George Jeffries! thy hands 
deep purple with the blood of thy murdered fellow-men. Ah! I 
know thee, awful and accursed shade! Two hundred years after 
thy death, men hate thee still, not without cause. Look men 
upon thee! I know thy history. Pause and be still while I tell 
it to these men . . . Come, shade of a judicial butcher. Two 
hundred years, thy name has been pilloried in the face of the 
world, and thy memory gibbeted before mankind. Let us see how 
thou wilt compare with those who kidnap men in Boston. Go, 
seek companionship with them. .Go, claim thy kindred, if such 
they be. Go, tell them that the memory of the wicked shall rot; 
that there is a God; and eternity; ay, and a judgment, too, where 
the slave may appeal against him that made him a slave, to Him 
that made him a man. 

“What! Dost thou shudder? Thou turn back! These not thy 
kindred! Why dost thou turn pale, as when the crowd clutches 
at thy life in a London street? It is true, George Jeffries and 
these are not thy kin. Forgive me that I should send thee, on 
such an errand, or bid thee seek companionship with such—with 
Boston hunters of the slave! Thou wert not base enough! It was 
a great bribe that tempted thee! Again, I say, pardon me for 
sending thee to keep company with such men! Thou only struck- 
est at men accused of crime; not men accused only of their birth! 
Thou wouldst not send a man into bondage for two pounds! I 
will not rank thee with men, who, in Boston, for ten dollars, 
would enslave a negro now! Rest still, Herod! Be quiet Nero! 
Sleep St. Dominic, and sleep, O Torquemada, in your fiery jail! 


The Compromise of 1550 271 


Sleep, Jeffries, underneath ‘the altar of the church’ which seeks, 
with christian charity, to hide your hated bones!’ 

Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XV., No. 19; May 15, 1851. 
Ibid., Volume XIV., No. 53; November 1, 1850. 

Western Christian Advocate, Volume XVII, p. 178, cols. 6-7; 
November 6, 1850. 

Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXI., p, 198, col. 5; 


December 11, 1850. 


. Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XV., July 17, 1851. 


CHAPTER XXII 


FIRST STEPS TOWARDS CIVIL WAR 


The publication of Harriett Beecher Stowe’s “Uncle 
Tom’s Cabin” stirred the wrath of southern Methodist 
editors. Those of the Advocates at Memphis and Nashville 
believed that the rights and privileges of such authors as 
Mrs. Stowe should be taken away.* Lee, editor of the 
Richmond Christian Advocate, asserted that ‘“‘the whole 
work, from inception to completion, from the press to the 
theater, ‘is just like the devil.’ It ain’t like anything else, 
that we wot of.’ 

When Stephen A. Douglas introduced his bill in January, 
1854, erecting the Kansas-Nebraska territory, Chase and 
Sumner and other Free-soilers in the House and Senate 
published a protest against the bill and its author. By the 
populace, Douglas was compared to Benedict Arnold and 
burned in efhgy throughout the North “by thousands who 
never took the trouble to read the Kansas-Nebraska Bill or 
seriously contemplated its effects.”? As a part of this denun- 
ciation, three thousand fifty ministers of New England, of 
all denominations, protested against the passage of the bill.* 
Douglas immediately took offense at this action and bitterly 
condemned the ministers, charging them “with ‘HAVING 
PROSTITUTED THE SACRED DESK to the miserable 
and corrupting influence of party politics,’ and he asserted 
that they ‘ought to be rebuked and required to confine them- 
selves to their vocation, instead of neglecting their holy 
religion.’ ”® 

The reaction of Methodists was such as might be expected. 
New England ministers were upheld and Douglas was 
severely criticised by two northern editors.6 In the South, 
the reverse was true. The rebuke administered by Douglas 
and other senators to northern radicals was highly com- 
mended. Southern Methodists put the greatest emphasis 
upon the effect which the action of New England clergymen 


272 


First Steps Towards Civil War 273 


would have upon Christianity. The editor of the Richmond 
Christian Advocate affirmed: “This is a sad affair, not only 
for the country, but for Christianity, so shamefully outraged 
in ‘the house of its friends.’ Professionally, we cannot be 
supposed to feel indifferently towards the ministerial char- 
acter. When in their place, engaged in their appropriate 
work, no class of men in the country is more highly esteemed 
than ministers of the gospel. But when they turn aside from 
their holy employments, and descend into the arena of party 
political strife, they defile their mission, and lay their honor 
in the dust. Instead of ‘washing their hands in innocency,’ 
they soil them with worldly filth, and stain them with crime 
against their country’s peace. They richly merit the rebukes 
administered by the gentlemen of the Senate, and must blame 
themselves, if, hereafter, they find themselves shunned as 
disturbers of the public peace, and the religion they profess 
and teach suspected of having too much to do with the 
world that now is, and too little with that which is to come.’’? 

As in 1850, so now northern conferences. rallied to the 
anti-slavery side of the question. By Maine conference, the 
Nebraska Bill was called a “wicked act, in as much as it is 
a violation of the word of God, a violation of a solemn 
compact, a forfeiture of national confidence, and an insult 
to the moral sentiment of a free people.” They declared 
their belief that members of Congress from New England 
who supported Douglas ‘were actuated by motives absolutely 
corrupt” and that they were therefore “unworthy the confi- 
dence of the New England people.” ‘They urged that all 
such should be defeated for re-election.2 Members of 
Providence conference maintained that the fact that they 
were ministers did not absolve them from their duties as 
citizens; against the passage of the bill they protested be- 
cause it would create distrust between the two sections, and 
because it was proposed to make slavery a national rather 
than a state question.? Erie conference also considered the 
law dangerous to the union of the states,!° while conferences 
of the “Old Northwest” passed various resolutions in which 
they protested against the further extension of slavery and 
asked the people to petition Congress to repeal the act. Some 
declared that they would vote against any man for public 


274 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


office who was not definitely pledged against the further 
extension of the slave power." 


It may be taken as axiomatic that whatever the North 
disliked the South approved. A northern editor asserted 
that “none of the Southern Methodist papers have done 
anything but wink favorably at the Nebraska bill as proposed 
and urged by Mr. Douglas.’?* It is doubtless true that 
southern Methodists were in complete sympathy with the 
Douglas program but they said comparatively little on the 
merits of the subject, maintaining that the Nebraska Bill 
was a political measure and therefore one on which the 
Church had no right to express itself.1% 


By the terms of the Douglas bill the question of slavery 
or freedom in Kansas was to be decided by the people of 
the territory itself. That the southern Methodist Church 
was keenly interested in the outcome is evident. One south- 
erner urged the southern Church to enter the lists in Kansas 
against northern Methodists.44 A correspondent of the Texas 
Christian Advocate declared that “southern men, southern 
organizations, southern colonization, and Southern Churches” 
would occupy Kansas. He believed that the South should 
have the entire territory in spite of northern protests. “Their 
disregard of southern rights and southern feelings, their 
insincerity and dishonesty, and their treason to the Consti- 
tution of the Union, place them utterly beyond the pale of 
our respect. Let the whole south, and the entire southern 
Church, direct their eyes and their energies to Kansas—aye, 
and to Nebraska also. Let these troublers of Church and 
state be defeated and overwhelmed, ‘horse, foot, and dra- 
goons.’ 1° 

In 1857, the Texas Christian Advocate made a further 
appeal. The editor said it had been demonstrated that slave 
labor could be used as well in Kansas as in any other south- 
ern territory. He urged that if ‘“‘a steady tide of emigration 
is kept up from the South, it will yet be free from abolition 
domination.” He cited several authorities to show that 
colonies had already gone, while others were preparing to go 
to Kansas. One Captain Clayton was especially commended 
and the editor added: “Other patriotic citizens from other 
portions of the South will doubtless follow his example, and 


Furst Steps Towards Civil War 275 


Western Missouri will literally empty her population upon 
the territory.’ 

March 14, 1855 Andrew Monroe of the southern Church 
wrote a letter to the Nashville Christian Advocate, in which 
he urged the South to establish herself in Kansas and_ be- 
sought the Church to “lay deep and wide the foundations of 
Southern Methodism.” He commented upon the promising 
future of Kansas but he also issued a warning. “Kansas 
is the most vulnerable and exposed part of our entire 
Methodist territory. The south generally, and the Church 
in particular, has much to win or lose in the present contest. 
We hope to see thousands of families here from slavehold- 
ing states before six months shall pass. Our _ bishops, 
presiding elders, preachers, and people ought to know that 
this country will be settled, and furnished with preachers and 
institutions. If we do not do it, others will. May we not 
hope for prompt and efficient action on the part of the south, 
till the men and the vast wealth of the south be called into 
requisition 27 

The plans of the South for southern churches and south- 
ern institutions in Kansas were denounced in scathing 
language by the editor of the Western Christian 
Advocate. He said it appeared that “to propagate the 
patriarchial system was of more importance than to spread 
the Gospel itself. Earth and perdition it seems are to be 
moved, in order to have the ‘peculiar institution’ planted in 
Kansas.”!7 Later he charged that “the Southern press” 
were “at all times more eager to defend slavery and to 
denounce anti-slavery men than they” were “to denounce 
licentiousness and concubinage.’’!8 

After Sumner delivered his speech, “The Crime against 
Kansas,” May 19, 1856, anti-slavery sentiment in the North 
and pro-slavery sentiment in the South became more intense. 
Lee accused northern Methodist preachers of being leaders 
in the anti-slavery agitation; and affirmed that they were 
neglecting their regular work and turning to politics—that 
“slavery, Kansas, Sumner, et id omne genus, are the themes 
on which the pulpit has been sweltering for some time 
past.”49 A survey of the resolutions of northern conferences 


276 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


indicates that there was probably little exaggeration in the 
statement of the southern editor. 

East Genesee conference condemned unsparingly the prac- 
tices in Kansas and called upon the Government to protect 
free-soilers. They also condemned the existence of “recrim- 
ation, of bullying and black-guardism” in Congress.7° Gene- 
see conference determined to use their influence in every 
possible way, and especially at the ballot-box, against slavery 
extension, which was considered the important question in 
the election of 1856.71, Maine conference declared that the 
work of southern “rufhans” in Kansas and in Congress was 
“not only an assault upon the foundations of civil and relig- 
ious liberty, but an insult to the American people which 
demands the utter prostration, by constitutional means, of 
the slave power, as the only method of preserving our self 
respect and of showing ourselves worthy to be a free and 
independent people.”?? 

Conferences of the “Old Northwest” were equally strong 
in their denunciation of slavery and the slave power in 
Kansas and in Congress. Michigan conference encouraged 
Methodists in Kansas and deplored the fact that “pro-slavery 
ruffans” had “been allowed to invade the Territory of 
Kansas, to shoot down and drive out free State men, with 
a view to prostitute its virgin soil to the foul purposes of 
slavery.*2 Rock River conference condemned the Adminis- 
tration for the outrages in Kansas, and also “the spirit of 
crimination bullying and blackguardism as it unfortunately 
existed in the Halls of Congress of the United States.” They 
declared that the attack on Sumner merited the condemnation 
of “all honorable and upright men.”?4 

Bishop Pierce predicted that the South would lose the 
struggle for the control of Kansas. While he blamed the 
North for being the aggressors in the outrages in the terri- 
tory, he admitted that the South had followed the bad 
example set by the North. In his opinion the South had 
erred in two respects. First, they had sent soldiers instead 
of citizens, and the permanency of southern society was, 
therefore, continually threatened. Second, southerners had 
undertaken the punishment of “abolition knights,’ instead 
of turning them over to the National Government. While 


First Steps Towards Civil War 277 


the climate was considered unfavorable for slavery, he hoped 
the institution might be recognized in the Constitution of 
the State when it was admitted into the Union so as “to 
identify Kansas with the Southern States in the councils of 
the country.” But he concluded that Kansas would be lost 
to the South “by her own fault rather than by the contri- 
vance of her enemies.”’?° 


It was on March 6, 1857 that the Supreme Court of the 
United States delivered their momentous decision in the case 
of Dred Scott» The South was more than satisfied with the 
result, and, while there is little evidence on the point, there 
is no reason to believe that southern Methodists were not in 
accord with popular sentiment. But in the North, there 
seemed to be few dissenting voices in the chorus of denun- 
ciation with which the majority of Methodist leaders greeted 
the ‘Court’s decision. The opinion of Justice Curtis that he 
did not consider the decision of the Court binding because 
it embraced points which were beyond its jurisdiction, gave 
Methodists sufficient opportunity to express their utter disap- 
proval of the disposition of the case. 


Maine conference regretted the effect which the decision 
would have upon the negroes of the country, and said that, 
while they did “not pass judgment upon its legal correct- 
ness,” they believed that “the slave power produced that 
decision.”*6 New Hampshire conference refused to accept 
the decision because it was contrary to the Constitution, 
justice and religion.2“ Pittsburg conference declared that 
they had always considered slavery local and therefore be- 
yond their control; now the Supreme Court had made 
slavery a national question, and consequently proper for 
discussion.28 Other conferences of the Northeast and West 
were equally severe in their censure of the Court.”® 
' The three topics considered in this chapter helped to bring 
about the Civil War. “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” was propaganda 
that succeeded in increasing the bitterness between the sec- 
tions; the Kansas-Nebraska Bill re-opened a question which 
was supposed to have been settled in 1850; while the Dred 
Scott decision further increased sectionalism and the hostility 
of northerners and southerners for each other. On all these 
questions Methodist leaders expressed themselves, and aided 


278 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


in creating sentiment for or against the political leaders in 
the great controversy over slavery. 


Western Christian Advocate, Volume XX., p. 18, col. 7; February 

2, 1853 and Ibid., p. 23, col. 1; February 9, 1853. 

Ibid., p. 6, col. 6; January 12, 1853. 

Dodd, Expansion and Conflict, pp. 235-40. 

Leftwich, Martyrdom in Missouri, Volume I., p. 174. Cf, The 

Liberator, Volume XXIV., p. 438, col. 8; March 17, 1854. 

Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXV., p. 58, col. 

3; April 12, 1854. ; 

Those of Zion’s Herald and the Northwestern Christian Advocate. 

For the latter see Volume II., p. 638, col. 2; April 19, 1854 and 

Ibid., p. 66, col, 2; April 26, 1854. 

7. The Liberator, Volume XXIV., p. 65, col. 2; April.28, 1854. 

8. Minutes of the Maine Conference, 1854, pp. 11-12. 

9. Minutes of the Providence Conference, 1854, p. 24. 

10. Fradenburgh, History of the Erie Conference, Volume II., pp. 
517-18. The vote on the resolutions was unanimous. 

11. Bennett, History of Methodism in Wisconsin, p. 147; Herrick and 
Sweet, History of the North Indiana Conference, p. 47; The Lib- 
erator, Volume XXIV., p. 57, col. 4; April 14, 1854 and Ibid., p. 169, 
cols, 5-6; October 27, 1854. See also, Northwestern Christian Ad- 
vocate, Volume IT., p. 70, col. 3; May 3, 1854. 

12. Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXI., p. 38, col. 7; March 8, 
1854. 

13. Ibid., p.. 43, ‘col. 2;. March’ 15, 1854, 

14. The Liberator, Volume XXV., p. 73, cols. 1-2; May 11, 1855. 

15. Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXII., p. 110, col. 7; July 11, 
1855. 

16. Elliott, South-Western Methodism, p. 93. 

ie ict acats Christian Advocate, Volume XXII., p. 66, col. 6; April 
5, 1855. 

18) bids ape 110.0 cola Wy July Le ie55. 

19. Ibid., Volume XXITII., p. 174, col. 2; October 29, 1856. 

20. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IV., p. 150, col. 7; 
September 17, 1856. 

21. Minutes of the Genesee Conference, 1856, p. 25. 

22. Minutes of the Maine Conference, 1856, p. 10. 

23. Minutes of the Michigan Conference, 1856, p. 26. 

24. Minutes of the Rock River Conference, 1856, pp. 22-3. These 
resolutions were, in substance, the same as those adopted by 
Troy, Black River, Oneida and Wyoming conferences. 

25. Elliott, South-Western Methodism, p. 96. 

26. Minutes of the Maine Conference, 1857, p. 10. 

27. Minutes of the New Hampshire Conference, 1857, p. 28. 

28. Minutes of the Pittsburg Conference, 1857, pp. 24-5. 

29. For the action of other conferences see: Minutes of the East 

Maine Conference, 1858, p. 20; Minutes of the Vermont Confer- 

ence, 1857, p. 15; Minutes of the New England Conference, 1857, 

p. 26; Minutes of the Upper Iowa Conference, 1857, p. 32; and 

Minutes of the Rock River Conference, 1857, pp. 22-3. One para- 

graph of the latter resolutions was copied verbatim from the New 

England conference resolutions without proper credit. 


oa nm #wr 


CHAPTER XXII 


THE EVE OF CIVIL WAR 


In the last two years before the outbreak of the Civil 
War there were three subjects of importance.! On the re- 
opening of the African slave trade the two Methodist 
Churches seem to have been of one mind. New England 
conference condemned “the desperate and persistent efforts” 
to import slaves into the country.? In the South, the editor 
of the Nashville Christian Advocate cited with approval the 
statement of Justice John A, Campbell of the United States 
Supreme Court at the Commencement of the University of 
Alabama that the African slave trade was the “supreme un- 
righteousness.”* He also commended the address of Hon. 
H. W. Hilliard at the Commencement of the University of 
Virginia, in which he said it was “better for Holland to cut 
the dykes that keep out the sea than for our country to open 
her doors to this importation of barbarism.” The editor 
declared that “such applause greeted the sentiment as even 
that place and audience were not used to.’% The same 
writer said that there were a few in the South and some in 
the North who desired a law admitting slaves but that these 
did not express the real sentiment of either section.? 

The second event which stirred both sections of the country 
to a high pitch of excitement was the capture of Harper’s 
Ferry by John Brown and his attempt to organize a slave 
insurrection. As might be expected, the exploit of Brown 
received only condemnation from southern papers. Under the 
heading, “Riot at Harper’s Ferry,” the editor of the Nash- 
ville Christian Advocate printed some of the press comment 
on the insurrection.» A week later, he declared that it was a 
“foolish and wicked attempt on the part of a few fanatics to 
accomplish an impossibility” and that he did not anticipate 
that the “outrage” would have the sanction of many people 
in the North.6 The editor of the Richmond Christian Advo- 
cate considered the raid at Harper’s Ferry a warning to the 


279 


280 Episcopal M ethodism and Slavery 


South. “Abolitionism is a form of treason daily acquiring 
new strength and new courage. LIBERTY. trembles at 
its progress. Patriotism, uniting north and south, can alone 
arrest its progress, and a wise Providence must guide . 

Let the entire south learn from the easy capture of Harper’s 
Ferry, the stern necessity of protection, as far as the national 
and state constitutions will allow, and our own resources will 
justify, against all contingencies and probabilities, from 
abolitionism in Church and state, in future.” 


John Brown and his raid were scarcely more popular among 
northern Methodist editors. The Western Christian Advo- 
cate first gave an account of the “riot” simply as a news item.® 
A week later the editor asserted that Brown’s exploit was 
“one of the most insane and foolhardy things” he had ever 
known, and decried the attempt to make political capital 
out of it, as it was claimed the Nashville Christian Advocate 
had done by saying it was a part of the “abolition and Black 
Republican schemes.” “If the editor of that paper really 
thinks that the Republican party sympathize with the crazy 
schemes of Brown any more than the Democratic party do, 
he is to be pitied for his ignorance; if he does not think so, 
he is to be pitied for something worse than ignorance.’? 


Watson condemned the raid of Brown because of the 
evils that would come upon the slaves, and because anti-sla- 
very men were placed in an embarrassing position. In his 
opinion, Brown had used the wrong methods to accomplish the 
destruction of slavery. “We are citizens, and our laws re- 
flect our will. If we like them not, we have but to breathe 
upon them and they are gone. Our remedy is at the ballot- 
box—not the cartridge-box. We have no apology for re- 
bellion and invasion.” Servile war was considered the worst 
of all evils, and no one who claimed “‘to be either a friend to 
the slave or a true man” would aid such a movement.” He 
excused Brown by saying that he believed that, because he 
had lost a son and some property by the raids of the pro- 
slavery party, he had sought retaliation as a result of an 
unbalanced mind. “The whole affair seems the work of a 
madman.’’14 


By the latter part of November, Watson seemed less con- 
cerned about the treasonable character of Brown’s act. He 
recorded that there was a great excitement in Virginia, 


The Eve of Civil War 281 


especially at Charlestown, Alexandria and Richmond, because 
the people feared that Brown’s friends were about to attempt 
his rescue. Troops had been ordered to Harper’s Ferry from 
Washington.’ He seems almost to chuckle at the excitable 
state of the Virginia mind. A gun was discharged by a sol- 
dier and Charlestown thrown into a panic, which was quieted 
only when it was discovered that it was only a cow which had 
refused to obey the sentry’s order to give the countersign.*4 

It remained for Zion’s Herald to stir the Methodist press 
of the South. The editor declared that Harper’s Ferry had 
“caused a perfect panic in the South.”!° It was stated that 
the fires in Charlestown, started by unknown persons, had 
been credited to the friends of Brown and that the military 
power in Virginia had been increased as a result.1® All 
trains were searched for armed men who might be coming to 
the aid of Brown.1? 

The attention which this New England paper paid to the 
insurrection called forth the condemnation of the New 
Orleans Christian Advocate. Under the heading, “Zion’s. 
Herald Giggles Over Harper’s Ferry,” the southern paper 
refuted the statement of the prevalence of a panic in the 
South. “A more deliberate, unfounded, profitless, pointless, 
pitiful falsehood, was never perpetrated.” He admitted 
that there was excitement in Virginia but nothing more than 
would be occasioned by “a fatal steamboat or railroad dis- 
aster.” The panic attributed to the South was entirely lack- 
ing and the statement of the northern editor declared to be 
without foundation. The southerner’s comparison of the 
editor of Zion’s Herald and Gerrit Smith and Brown is not 
complimentary to the first named. ‘The only difference 
between the editor of Zion’s Herald and Gerrit Smith is a 
difference in outspoken honesty and pluck. ‘Ossawatamie 
Brown’ is a saint, compared to those orators, preachers and 
editors, secular and religious, who have purposely fomented 
such hideous incendiarisms and villany, and secretly longed 
to see it sucessful, but are ready to condemn it if it fai! 
Poor Brown will hang, but his neck is no more richly claimed 
by the halter than many a one now encircled by a white 
cravat.’’18 


Brown impressed all who met him, whether friend or 
enemy, as a man of purpose. A Methodist preacher argued 


282 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


with him in his cell about slavery as “a Christian institution,” 
but Brown replied that, while he was willing to consider the 
clergyman a gentleman it was “as a heathen gentleman.”1!9 
One editor declared that John Brown “convinces all who 
approach him, that he possesses an original nobility of soul 
which is to be found in very few individuals.”2° After his 
execution, Watson came to a fuller appreciation of Brown. 
“John Brown is dead, but the spirit of his deeds walks among 
the Southern plantations! John Brown is dead, but his death 
made him in the estimation of thousands a martyr to free- 
dom !’’21 
It was in connection with the raid on Harper’s Ferry that 
the editor of Zion's Herald wrote: “There is no evidence that 
previous to 1854, only five years ago, John Brown was any 
stronger in his abolition tendencies than three-fourths of all 
the men and women and children north of Mason & Dixon’s 
line. John Brown has done no more than each one of a 
million of men in our Free States would have done under 
similar provocation, if they had had the pluck to do it.’ 
Pluck John Brown undoubtedly had, by testimony of friend 
and enemy. But if the New York Observer may be believed, 
it must be admitted that the ministers of New York were not 
grasping for the martyr’s crown. The editor affirms that 
“of the five hundred pulpits of this city, we believe that not 
five uttered a word of approbation of the John Brown in- 
vasion of Virginia 


“Of the five hundred preachers i in this city, we have heard 
of but TWO who ventured to give the sanction of their pul- 
pits to the support of the highest crime perpetrated in this 
country since the treason of Benedict Arnold.’ 


That not all Methodists in the North were opposed to 
Brown’s raid is evident from the evidence already presented. 
Zion’s Herald was a very strong supporter of Brown. And 
Gilbert Haven, sensing the meaning of Brown’s act, said 
on the day he was hanged: “Ere long slavery will lose 
Waterloo. Within this first century of our national life tt 
will disappear. Then will all men unite in praising this Sam- 
son who first tore down the pillars of this soul-devouring 
Dagon.”** But those who spoke out boldly in condemnation 
of Brown were few indeed. Consistency compelled northern- 
ers to support the Constitution and the Government against 


The Eve of Civil War 283 


attacks, even as they were insisting that northern preachers 
should be protected in their right of free speech and the right 
of assembly when they went into southern territory. 


The election of 1860 was one of the most important in the 
history of our country, yet Methodist papers returned to 
the time-honored position of non-interference in politics. 
There is no indication that northern Methodists, as such, 
approved the principles set forth by Lincoln in his debates 
with Douglas or that they favored him as the Republician 
presidential candidate. In view of the fact that probably 
two-thirds of the delegates to the Republican Convention at 
Chicago preferred Seward and that Lincoln was not favorably 
known to many in the party,”° it is not strange that Methodists 
should have been deprived of the seer’s vision as to the real 
greatness of the new Republican leader. Northern papers 
gave some indication of the general feeling in the South but 
nothing more. Mr. Rett of South Carolina was reported 
to have declared that Lincoln was a “renegade Southerner” 
and Mr. Hamline a mulatto.2® Colonel Keitt of Columbia, 
South Carolina, declared that he was for disunion if Lincoln 
were elected.27. But a more moderate southern paper was 
quoted as saying: “All who are in favor of civil war, star- 
vation, ruin, desolation, robbery, arson, murder, and the 
utter destruction of the South, should go for disunion if 
Lincoln is elected.”? 

Southern Methodist papers freely predicted that Lincoln 
would be elected and that secession and civil war would 
result.29 The conviction that Lincoln’s election meant the 
destruction of slavery was shared by at least one Methodist 
abolitionist, who made the prediction immediately after 
the triumph of Lincoln.2° Dr. Kingsley, editor of the Wes- 
tern Christian Advocate, asserted that the election of the 
Republican candidate did not mean the destruction of slavery. 
In reply, the editor of the New Orleans Christian Advocate 
declared: “Dr. Kingsley knows perfectly well that he is 
simply practicing a deception of the deepest kind upon the 
Southern people. He knows perfectly well that the ultimate 
destruction of the institutions of the South is the one aim of 
the Republican party, and the success of Mr. Lincoln gives 
them power to accomplish it, gradually but surely. He knows 
perfectly well that he does not represent the prevalent feel- 


284 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


ing of the Northern people. But the South can not be 
deceived any longer. And she will choose destruction rather 
than submission to dishonor and gradual subjugation: and 
she will choose rightly. The Western, itself, is filled with 
hatred, abuse, and misrepresentation of the South. The 
coaxing game is hypocritical, contemptible, and happily comes 
too late.’”’31 

The election of Lincoln caused the greatest excitement 
throughout the country and especially in the South, where 
the states began to adopt their ordinances of secession.*? In 
this section there was the greatest interest in the incoming 
administration. Predictions as to the personnel of the new 
Cabinet were freely made but proved to without basis in 
fact.8% As an abolition state paper Lincoln’s inaugural ad- 
dress must have been a severe disappointment. But to con- 
servatives of both sections it brought the promise that 
there would be no war unless it was forced upon the Govern- 
ment. Stevenson testified: “His inaugural is as good and 
as favorable to the South, it seems to me, as could reasonably 
be expected.”*4 And Stephen A. Douglas gave his approval 
to Lincoln’s position on the question of secession. 

Three topics — the re-opening of the African slave trade, 
John Brown’s raid and the installation of Abraham Lincoln 
as president — have been considered in the present chapter. 
On the first, Methodists of the North and the South seem to 
have been agreed, although it is improbable that those in the 
South would have brought in a verdict of “guilty” in a trial 
of smugglers who unloaded their human freight at southern 
wharves. Until.after the execution of John Brown, official 
Methodist papers of both sections condemned Brown and his 
unlawful attempt to free the slaves. Only Zion’s Herald, 
which was not responsible to the General Conference but only 
to the radical, abolition conferences of New England, seems 
to have stirred the South to wrath and indignation. And in 
one of the greatest crises in the history of the Nation, north- 
ern Methodist papers, conferences and bishops gave no indi- 
cation that they believed that Lincoln’s principles should be 
sustained at the ballot-box, much less that he was the man 
of destiny, called of God to be the preserver of the Union 
and the liberator of a race. 


19. 
20. 


The Eve of Civil War 285 


The Lincoln-Douglas debates are not considered because there was 
no comment by any Methodist paper on these debates until 1861, 
From the Methodist press one would never have known that the 
debates occurred. 

Minutes of the New England Conference, 1859, p. 19. 

Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XXIII., September 1, 1859, 
“The truth is, those who favor the re-opening of the African slave- 
trade are about equally divided between the North and the South 
and too few in either section to awaken serious reply or opposition. 
Hence all the saying and writing has been pretty much on one 
side. The people of the North must not be held accountable for 
the acts of ship owners in New York and Massachusetts, who it 
appears from recent developments, are actively engaged in fitting 
out vessels designed for this traffic. Nor must those of the South 
be held accountable for those smuggling speculators on the gulf 
coast who are ready to receive these cargoes.’’ 

It should not be forgotten that the General Conference of the 
Church, South, in 1858 refused to take any stand on the African 
slave trade. The probability is that little opposition would have 
been raised to such traffic by southern Methodists. 

“Ossawatomie Brown” had first gained notoriety in 1856 when he 
murdered five pro-slavery men in Kansas in retaliation for the 
murder of free state men. (Smith, Parties and Slavery, p. 165). 
In May, 1858, he led a band of men who freed eleven negroes and 
stole some horses in Missouri. The negroes were taken to Canada 
and the horses sold in Cleveland, Ohio. In the process of taking 
this property, one slaveholder was killed. (Chadwick, Causes of 
the Civil War, pp. 76-7). In July, 1859, Brown and twenty-one 
followers came to the vicinity of Harper’s Ferry. The secretary 
of war was perfectly familiar with the plans of Brown but did 
nothing, On the evening of Sunday, October 16, Harper’s Ferry 
was occupied by Brown and his men; the folowing Tuesday morn- 
ing, the engine-house was assaulted and Brown and some of his 
men were captured. Owen Brown and six others made their 
escape. (Chadwick, Causes of the Civil War, pp. 77-81.) 
Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XXIII., October 27, 1859. 
Ibid., November 3, 1859. 
Quoted in the Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXVL, p. 
178, col. 6; November 9, 1859. 
etc Christian Advocate, Volume XXVI., p. 170, col. 4; October 
, 1859. 
Ibid., p. 174, col. 4; November 2, 1859. 


. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume VII., p. 195, col. 3; 


December 7, 1859. 


. Ibid., p. 171, col. 3; October 26, 1859. 

. Ibid., p. 183, col. 3; November 16, 1859. 

. Ibid., p. 187, col. 3; November 23, 1859. 

. Ibid., p. 191, col. 3; November 30, 1859. 

. Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXX., p. 171, col. 1; 


October 26, 1859. 


. Ibid., p. 187, col. 2; November 23, 1859. 
. Ibid., p. 191, col. 2; November 30, 1859. 
. Ibid., p. 182, col. 5; Nov. 16, 1859. In reply, the editor of Zion’s Herald 


said: ‘‘We have seen drunken men stoutly maintain they were sober, 
and shall not forget one poor little man shaking with the ague, 
who with teeth chattering and chin trembling, squeaked out, ‘I- 
don’t-shake-much-now.’ As to the comparative saintship of Brown 
and Zion’s Herald, that is not a matter for us to decide, though 
we certainly would rather take his chance for heaven hanging, 
than the above Editor’s, or any unhung and unrepentant oppres- 
sor of God’s poor.’’ 

Sanborn, Life and Letters of John Brown, p. 618. 

Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXX., p. 179, col 
1; November 9, 1859. 


286 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


21. 
22. 
23. 
. Methodist Quarterly Review, Volume LIL. p. 191; April, 1870. It 


Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume VII., p. 195, col. 3; 
December 7, 1859. 

Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXX., p. 194, col. 3; 
December 7, 1859. 

eiavee: in The Liberator, Volume XXIX., p. 193, col. 1; December 
NLS Oats 


is possible that Haven had thoughts in 1870 of what happened in 
1859 that he did not have in 1859. 


. Chadwick, Causes of the Civil War, pp. 119-23. 
. Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXXI., p. 119, col. 


1; July 25, 1860. 


. Ibid., p. 147, col. 2; September 12, 1860. 

. Ibid., p. 179, col. 2; November 7, 1860. 

. Elliott, South-Western Methodism, pp. 224-5. 

. Methodist Quarterly Review, Volume XXIV., December 6, 1860. 


This was Gilbert Haven. 


- Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXVIII. p. 84, col. 4; March 


Los ASOl: 
Stevenson, Journal, Volume I., pp. 171-2. 


. Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XXIV., December 6, 1860 
. Stevenson, Journal, Volume I., p. 176. 
. Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXVIII., p. 81, cols. 6-7; 


March 6, 1861. The account of the inaugural in this paper gives 
the impression that the gloom of midnight had settled down over 
the country. No great care seems to have been taken to have a 
proper setting for the ceremony. ‘‘The canopy beneath which Mr. 
Lincoln delivered his Inaugural was of rough boards without orna- 
ment.’’ It was affirmed that ‘‘the table before which Mr. Lincoln 
stood was of the commonest description, that could be purchased 
at a street auction for three shillings. The verdict of the crowd 
was that it was ‘scandalous.’’’ Chief Justice Taney, who had 
administered the oath of office, and Stephen A. Douglas, who held 
Lincoln’s hat during the ceremony, were two interested onlookers, 
the first of whom “sat eyeing the reader from the moment the 
first word was uttered to the last,’ while the latter ‘‘frequently, 
in a subdued voice, said, ‘Good’; ‘That is the right doctrine,; 
‘That is no coercion,’ etc.” 


CHAPTER XXIV 


METHODISM AND DISUNION 


In preceding chapters we have considered the division of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church and the formation of the 
Church, South; the adherence of preachers and societies 
to the Church of their choice and the division of the Church 
funds; the change in the sentiment of the two Churches 
towards slavery; and the attitude of the two branches of 
Methodism on political questions connected with slavery. 
Before we turn to a consideration of the part which the 
Methodist Churches played in the Civil War, it is important 
to fix the responsibility of Methodism for that conflict, so far 
as it is possible to do so. While it is true that other denomina- 
tions—especially the Presbyterian and Baptist—divided on 
the issue of slavery, the very fact that the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church was the first to separate on a problem connected 
with this question means that that Church should receive a 
larger share of the credit if that separation presaged the dis- 
union of the Nation. 


When, during the General Conference of 1844, John C. 
Calhoun invited William Capers and other southern dele- 
gates to meet him in Washington on their return from New 
York, in order that they might counsel together,! the division 
of the Methodist Church instantly took on a new significance. 
The Charleston Mercury published with the most favorable 
comment the “Protest” of southern delegates in the General 
Conference of 1844 and declared that it marked “an epoch— 
the first dissolution of the Union.’* The Columbia South 
Carolinian asserted that the effect of the division would be 
felt in the Nation. Separation was considered desirable 
because it would promote peace in the Church and “arouse 
the North to a proper sense of the pernicious influence 
of abolitionism.” If this should result, it was thought that 
it would “lead to a closer and happier union, religious and 
political. But if not, then it is evident that the separation will 
soon end in a political one.’ 


287 


288 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


When Henry Clay was asked his opinion on the effect which 
the separation of the Church would have on national disunion, 
he replied: “I will not say that such a separation would 
necessarily produce a dissolution of the political union of 
these states ; but the example would be fraught with imminent 
danger, and in co-operation with other unfortunate causes 
unfortunately existing, its tendency on the stability of the 
confederacy would be perilous and alarming.’* Another 
southern statesman was more bold. He was quoted as 
being in favor of the division of the Church, although he 
predicted the dissolution of the Union as a result. 


By 1850, the full significance of the division of the Metho- 
dist Church was more easily recognized. Both Calhoun and 
Webster referred to the strife which had resulted between the 
two Churches to show that the situation was full of the 
gravest danger and alarm if a more conciliatory spirit did not 
obtain in both sections. Webster said that there were many 
cords—spiritual and ecclesiastical, political and social—which 
bound the Nation together. Speaking of the Church, he 
declared: “The first of these cords which snapped under its 
explosive force, was that of the powerful Methodist Epis- 
copal Church. The numerous and strong ties which held it 
together, are all broken, and its unity gone. They now form 
separate churches; and instead of the whole church which 
was formerly felt, they are now arrayed into two hostile 
bodies, engaged in litigation about what was formerly their 
common property.’ 

While the editor of the Southwestern Christian Advocate 
could see no connection between the division of the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church and the dissolution of the Union,’ 
other southern Methodists freely predicted dire results for 
the Nation if the ecclesiastical struggle continued. One cor- 
respondent asserted that he had opposed division until 1844 
“on the ground that, if we had Northern and Southern 
churches, it would not be long before we should have 
Northern and Southern Confederacies.”® And the editor 
of the Southern Christian Advocate wrote: “The feud 
occasioned, mark it, by the admission of political and extra- 
religious measures into the Church, will array political 
partizans on one or the other side, according to their sympa- 
thies with or against abolition :—and the upshot of the whole 


Methodism and Disunion 289 


matter will be a dissolution of our glorious confederacy—with 
civil war looming up in the distance and whetting his fangs 
for the blood of brothers. The experiment whether man is 
capable of self-government will end ;—the noblest model of 
a free and republican confederacy of sovereign states which 
ever saw the light—will find its grave dug by Americans in 
the name of God and religion.’ 

In the North, there was a like difference of opinion as to 
the effect which the division of the Church would have upon 
the preservation of the Union. The editor of the Western 
Christian Advocate agreed with the Nashville editor that 
there was no relation between the- two calamities1° The 
editor of Zion’s Herald, replying to the fears of his con- 
temporary of the Southern Christian Advocate, said: “As 
much as we honor Methodism we do think that this supreme 
importance attached to her influence on the destiny of the 
nation 1s supremely ridiculous. If the Methodist Church 
is becoming necessary to the existence of the state, it is high 
time she were overthrown. All good patriots should pray for 
its dissolution. The fact is our southern brethren have 
given themselves up to extravagances which give an air of - 
almost ludicrous hyperbole to their writings and proceedings. 
Time will afford some curious retrospections.’’14 

The division of the Methodist Episcopal Church was 
watched with the keenest interest by Wesleyan Methodists. 
The editor of their official paper, the True Wesleyan, de- 
clared that, while he thought the division of the Church would 
certainly be consummated at Louisville in 1845, this would 
not necessarily produce the disruption of the Union. But 
he believed that that event would “greatly weaken the cords 
of union.” He asserted that the question of slavery or 
liberty would soon be paramount in the thought of the people. 
Said he: “Other churches will most likely follow the 
example of the M. E. Church. They must do this. And 
the nation cannot long brave the moral sentiment of the 
country. And blessed be that day when the ungodly national 
compact shall be broken up! Slavery never would, never 
could have flourished in this land in the nineteenth century, 
controlling church and state, but for the connivance and sup- 
port of the North. Cut off Northern support, in every sense, 
and you take its life-blood.” As to the possibility of civil 


290 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


war between the two sections, the editor considered it beyond 
belief. “It is too late in the day to talk about a war between 
the North and the South. Such a war could not be maintained 
on the part of the South a single month; and those eyes 
which only see through cotton bags and human souls, must 
see this—however reckless they may be in other matters. 
Besides, the anti-war spirit and feeling is diffusing itself 
' throughout creation. It is, therefore, we repeat, too late in 
the day to talk of a civil war in such a land as this.”!” 


But Dr. Bond believed that the importance of the division 
was underestimated by other northerners. He showed from 
the statement of the governor of South Carolina that the 
relation between the ecclesiastical and political affairs was 
very intimate. Bond believed that the interest of Calhoun 
and the South Carolina governor in the proceedings of the 
General Conference of 1844 meant disunion for the nation. 
He urged that the political results would be much more 
serious than the ecclesiastical, and that Methodists should 
hesitate long before consummating separation.}% 


Peter Cartwright specifically charges that the division of 
the Church was the first great step in political disunion. He 
expressed the fear that “the constant agitation and unscrupu- 
lous anathemas indulged in by frenzied preachers and un- 
principled demagogues, political demagogues, that seek more 
for the spoils of office than the freedom of the slave or the 
good of the country, will so burst the bonds of brotherly love 
and the real love of country, that all the horrors of civil war 
will break upon us shortly, and firebrands, arrows, and death, 
be thrown broadcast over the land, and anarchy, mobs, and 
lawless desperadoes reign triumphant.’’!4 


As the discussion of political questions connected with 
slavery continued, Methodist papers became more certain 
that civil war would be the outcome of the controversy. 
Leading writers shared their conviction. While Simpson 
made light of the fear of the South that disunion would 
result unless the Compromise of 1850 were adopted, the 
editor of the Christian Advocate and Journal declared in the 
same year that “the indications of a spirit of disunion have 
been too plain to be mistaken.” The agitation of the subject 
of slavery in papers and conferences of the Church was 
considered “highly inexpedient, not to say dangerous.” As 


Methodism and Disunion 291 


a result, the nation had been brought to “the very verge of a 
fearful vortex.” As to the future, the editor said: ‘Let 
the system of agitation be pressed a step or two farther, and 
the United States of America may be plunged into the horrors 
of a civil war—a thing infinitely more injurious, even to the 
coloured race, than slavery itself.”4® In 1856, Cartwright 
wrote a scathing denunciation of abolitionists)? and added: 
“Tt am perfectly satisfied that if force is resorted to, this 
glorious Union will be dissolved, a civil war will follow, death 
and carnage will ensue, and the only free nation on earth 
will be destroyed.’!8 Again he predicted that the results 
of the agitation and strife and compromises would be dis- 
union, war, ‘and rivers of human blood” which would “stain 
the soil of our happy country.’’!® 


Among southerners there developed a similar conviction 
that civil war was imminent. The editor of the Nashville 
Christian Advocate cited the action of a convention in South 
Carolina, in 1852, where it was asserted that they had good 
erounds for withdrawing from the Union but declined doing 
so only because it was considered inexpedient.2° Governor 
Campbell of Tennessee saw the outcome of secession perhaps 
more clearly than most leaders of his section. No northerner 
who advocated the further centralization of government 
could improve on his statement of the situation.” “When we 
look calmly and thoroughly at the matter, it must strike us 
as idle and insane to talk about seceding from or dissolving 
the Union, in quiet and peace, by consent. This is impossible. 
Civil war will inevitably and naturally follow the one or the 
other. Secession is separation, and disguise it as you may, it 
implies and intends a separate organization and a separate 
government. Should one State prove successful, others would 
seek to follow the example and in the course of time, we 
should probably have thirty or more petty republics, wrang- 
ling and quarreling and fighting.”?? 

In January, 1860, southern Methodist papers boldly 
espoused the cause of secession. The editor of the Richmond 
Christian Advocate set forth with evident approval that the 
South was arming; that non-intercourse with the North was 
becoming very popular among southerners; and that the 
dissolution of the Union was considered inevitable. The 
only hope for the continuance of a united nation was in the 


292 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


conservative party in the North. But that the editor had 
little confidence in the North is clear from his statement that 
the South was “concentrating on the single principle of self- 
preservation and separate independence, for Southern con- 
servatism’” was “fast settling on this principle.”?? Before 
the election of Lincoln, the North Carolina Christian Advocate 
declared that the Union would not survive a year if he were 
successful. But the editor of that paper was perfectly aware 
of the consequences. “A dissolution of this Union cannot 
be peaceful. It will be followed by a civil war, the most 
inveterate and horrible.”?% 

Despite the knowledge that civil war would follow seces- 
sion, there were Methodists in the South, even before the 
nomination of Lincoln, who talked about the advantages of 
disunion. One writer declared that “the probabilities and 
advantages of an independent Southern confederacy are 
matters current in conversation and journalism.” He be- 
lieved that New Orleans would probably become the great 
center of trade for the new nation, and that the capital would 
be in the neighborhood of that city. Cuba and Spanish 
America, as far as the Isthmus of Panama, might be added 
to the new southern nation. The writer viewed the new 
government as an accomplished fact. “What a dazzling 
dream of empire! to be at length disentangled from the cold 
North, and to have free and unembarrassed development. 
for our peculiar resources and proclivities. Divide the 
federal property peaceably, and dissolve the political part- 
nership. Split the American eagle in twain, and the star- 
spangled banner, the grave of Washington and the memories. 
of the Revolution.’’* 

The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, has been charged 
with the responsibility for the Civil War. That the preachers 
and editors of that Church advocated disunion even though 
it might lead to a_ struggle has already been shown. 
Brunson declares that they were responsible for the cat- 
astrophe because they stood for slavery and because, being 
the largest Church, their influence was greater. He con- 
cludes his tirade against southern Methodists by a brief 
review. of the separation and shows to his own satisfaction 
that the division of the Methodist Church was the beginning 
of a series of events which led directly to the war.?é 


Methodism and Disunton 293 


On the other hand, Armstrong cites McTyiere’s “History 
of Methodism” to prove that the Methodist Church was in no 
sense responsible for the Civil War. He says that abolition- 
ists had sought to succeed in their program through the 
Church, and that when they were defeated there, they turned 
to politics and won their battle for the freedom of the slaves. 
Armstrong affirms that it was “a well known fact that, after 
defeat on religious and moral lines, they began by spurning 
the Bible and the civil Constitution, and that they honored 
the churches by their denunciation.’’?" 

To assign to either Southern or Northern Methodists the 
responsibility for the “Irrepressible Conflict” is more than 
can be done with certainly. But that the division of the 
Methodist Episcopal Church was a very powerful factor in the 
attempt at disunion can not be denied. It will be remembered 
that the northern delegates to the General Conference of 1844 
accepted division as the way out of a bad situation; both con- 
sidered it a final resort. Because a division of the Church 
took place, it did not necessarily follow that there must also 
be disunion of the states. If it had not been for the bitterness 
aroused on both sides of the “line of separation” and espec- 
ially if it had not been for the dispute, extending over a 
period of years, concerning the common property of Metho- 
dism, it is altogether probable that the talk of dissolving the 
Union would have been greatly minimized. But thoughtful 
argument is always at a premium when passions are aroused, 
and especially when the point of view of the opposition is 
not thoroughly understood. 

But whether the Methodist Church in the South or that in 
the North, or neither, was directly responsible for the Civil 
War, the time had come when slavery was to receive its 
death-blow. To accomplish this result, war must be the 
portion of the Nation for four years; and millions of money 
and thousands of human lives must be sacrificed. The Civil 
War was waged to preserve the Union, but it became im- 
possible to avoid the issue of emancipation®® as a contributing 
cause of the greater and more immediate problem of secession. 


1. Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XV., No. 33; August 28, 1851. 
The letter is also quoted in Norwood, The Schism in the Methodist 
Church, 1844, p. 190. 

2. Elliott, The Great Secession, cols. 432-3. See also, Norwood, The 
Schism in the Methodist Church, 1844, p. 188 and The Liberator, 


294 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


Volume XIV., p. 113, col. 3; July 19, 1844. 

The Liberator, Volume XIV., p. 105, col. 6; July 5, 1844. Cf. Ibid. 

p. 141, col. 1; September 6, 1844 where the Belknapp Gazette is quoted 

as predicting that the-political union would not outlast the division 

of the Methodist Church six months. 

Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume XIX., p. 157, col. 1; May 

14, 1845. Cf. Democratic Statesman, Volume I., p. 80; May 10, 

1845. This latter paper was published for nine months for the 

purpose of ‘‘redeeming’”’ Tennessee from Whiggism to “her ancient 

democratic position.” (Found in the Tennessee Historical Library). 

_Garrison commented: “Only think of the advice of a politician, 

like Henry Clay, being sought by the Church of Christ (!) for its 

guidance in the path of duty!!”” (The Liberator, Volume XV., p. 

78, col. 2; May 16, 1845). 

Elliott, The Great Secession, cols. 433-4. 

Webster, Writings, Volume X., p. 63. Cf. Calhoun, Works, Volume 

IV., pp. 557-8. This is a part of Webster’s famous speech in the 

debate on the Compromise of 1850, delivered March 7, 1850. 

So a ane Christian Advocate, Volume IX., No. 11; January 10, 
oO. ° 

Richmond Christian Advocate, Volume XIII, pp. 158, col. 6 and 

159, col. 1; December 4, 1845. 

Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XV., p. 122, col. 4; 


July 31, 1844. 


_ Western Christian Advocate, Volume XI., p. 70, cols. 1-2; August 


16, 1844. 
Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XV., p. 122, col. 4; 


July 31, 1844. 
Quoted in the Liberator, Volume XIV., PD. 126, col. 3; August 9, 


1844. 


. Norwood, The Schism in the Methodist Church, 1844, pp. 191-3. 


Cartwright, Autobiography, pp. 439-40. 


| Crooks, Life of Bishop Simpson, pp. 262-5. Cf. Western Christian 
Advocate, Volume XVIL., p. 70, cols. 2-3; May 1, 1850. 


Nashville and Louisville Christian Advocate, Volume XV., January 


"9 1851. The item is taken from the Christian Advocate and 


Journal of December 26, 1850. 
“T have never seen a rabid abolition or free-soil society that I 


could join, because they resort to unjustifiable agitation, and the 


means they employ are generally unchristian, They condemn and 
confound the innocent with the guilty; the means they employ are 
not truthful, at all times; SNe he ts 
Cartwright, Autobiography, p. 129. 


| Ibid., p. 158. “If agitation must succeed agitation, strife succeed 


strife, compromise succeed compromise, it will-end in a disolution 
of this blessed Union, civil war will follow, and rivers of human 


blood stain the soil of our happy country.” 
Nashville, Christian Advocate, Volume XVI., May 18, 1852. 


1. tbid., Volume XV., October 23, 1851. 
. Elliott, South-Western Methodism, pp. 210-11. 


3. Ibid., p. 225. 
Volume XXIV., February 16, 1860. 


Nashville Christian Advocate, 


Elliott, South-Western Methodism, p. 30, gives another example. 


Brunson, A Western Pioneer, Volume DP yp.o0G, 


Armstrong, The Old Baltimore Conference, p. 275. 


See the Minutes of the Providence Conference, 1855, p. 19, for an 
interesting statement of the existence of slavery and freedom side 
by side. It reads as follows: “Slavery in our country exists in 
the very presence of Christianity, simply because Christianity is 
not so administered as to abolish it; and Christian churches and 
slave barricoons; protracted meetings and slave auctions; gospel 
ministers and negro traders; revivals of religion and pro-slavery 
caucuses; bibles, hymn books, disciplines and chains, whips and 
thumb screws; pious prayers and cries of distress; shouts of praise 
and wails of despair; collections for the support of missions abroad, 


Methodism and Disunion 295 


and the sale of Christ’s church at home to supply the means: a 
holy indignation against infanticide and Sutteeism in India, and 
the forcible separation of Christian families at home; crowds of 
devoted worshippers with prayer books in hand passing through 
the streets to the house of God, on one day. and coffies of manacled 
slaves under the whip of the soul drivers, destined for the shambles 
of the far South, defiling along the same streets, the next—all 
strangely mingied together, in one country.” 





PART V 
THE PERIOD OF CIVIL WAR 


. 
4 i 
rh 


ee Nee a) 





CHAPTER XXV 


THE LOYALTY OF NORTHERN METHODISTS 


The Methodist Episcopal Church has always been proud 
of its record of devotion to the Union during the Civil War. 
“Methodism is loyalty’ asserted one conference,’ and the 
estimate that one hundred thousand Methodist soldiers were 
to be found in northern armies? indicates that the claim to 
loyalty was no idle boast. And, if there were any doubt as 
to the regard in which the Methodist Church was held by 
the National Government, it would be dispelled by the state- 
ment of President Lincoln, made in response to an address 
of the General Conference of the Church in 1864. “Nobly 
sustained as the government has been by all the churches, [ 
would utter nothing which might in the least appear invidious 
against any. Yet, without this, it may fairly be said that the 
Methodist Episcopal Church not less devoted than the best, 
is by its greater numbers the most important of all. It is 
no fault in others that the Methodist Church sends more 
soldiers to the field, more nurses to the hospital, and more 
prayers to Heaven than any.’ 

Lincoln, perhaps more than any other man, kept constantly 
in mind the paramount purpose of the North in coercing the 
southern states—namely, the preservation of the Union. 
During the first few months of the war, Methodist leaders 
were in complete agreement with him. To permit south- 
erners to secede from the Union was considered unthinkable. 
War might come if an attempt were made to prevent the 
extension of slavery, but even war, while terrible and opposed 
to the spirit of the Bible, was not the greatest evil.* “It is 
a greater calamity to permit the spirit of mobocracy to 
remain rampant, destroying all rights of citizens. It is a 
greater calamity to submit to the extinction of the freedom 
of the press, and speech, and to degenerate into the system 
of Austria, or Florence.” Watson believed it would be worse 
than war to have slavery control all the territories and seize 


299 


300 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


from Mexico some of that nation’s best provinces and stock 
them with slaves. He concluded that the only possible action 
for the Government was to resist secession.* After the war 
had begun, the same editor asserted that the attack of the 
Government was not “upon the institution of slavery, nor 
with a design to destroy it. The administration has no such 
design, and cannot have, and it is not best that any should 
be deceived. The sole design of the administration is to 
maintain the authority of the nation to uphold the majesty 
of law, and ‘hold and possess’ national property.”® 
Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church, on the 
whole, strongly supported the President in his determination 
to suppress the rebellion. The records of over thirty .of 
these bodies for the years of the war show a very general 
and hearty approval of the aims of the Washington Govern- 
ment. One conference was opposed to “all inflammatory 
speeches, and treasonable utterances designed to convey sym- 
pathy to the enemies of the nation, to discourage and 
distract the loyal masses, and to subvert the vile purposes 
of unprincipled partizans and demagogues.”® Another body 
of ministers declared with emphasis that “this infernal 
rebellion, the most hellish since Satan seceded from the 
government of Heaven, must be put down,, cost what it 
may.”? With such sentiments current throughout most of 
the northern Church, the enthusiasm of Genesee conference 
may be imagined when a beautifully carved cane was shown 
to that body. “The serpent of secession was (shown) 
endeavoring to destroy Liberty and her children, and the 
strong talons of the Eagle avenger were on the reptile’s 
throat.” As it was intended to do, “it suggested stinging 
rebuke to ‘Copper heads’, and breathed ‘Death to Traitors.’ ’’8 
Without exception, bishops of the northern Methodist 
Church were actively loyal to the Washington Government. 
At Genesee conference, October 16, 1861, just before the 
unanimous vote was taken in support of the National 
Government and in condemnation of the rebellion, Bishop 
Ames delivered a spirited address to the ministers on national 
affairs. “He thought that, were it his duty to join the 
Union army and fight the rebels, he should shoot very fast, 
he would ‘fire into them most benevolently.’”9 May 17, 


The Loyalty of Northern Methodists 301 


1861, Bishop Morris wrote a letter urging the fullest support 
of the Federal Government. He discouraged political divis- 
ions and said there were only loyal and disloyal people— 
“there is no middle ground.” The Bible, and especially 
the writings of St. Paul, were cited to show that God was 
the “source of civil authority” and that he required obedience 
to the civil governments from all the people. “To deny 
either of these propositions is virtually to deny the truth of 
God’s Word.’”?° Bishops Janes, Scott and Baker also wrote 
messages of encouragement to Elliott, who, at that time, was 
struggling manfully against secessionists in St. Louis and 
other points in Missouri. 

But, of all the bishops, Simpson possessed most fully the 
confidence of the President and people. Even before Lincoln 
went to Washington, he and the bishop were in conference 
several times.1* In April, 1861, after the President made 
his call for the first seventy-five thousand volunteers to 
suppress the rebellion, Simpson expressed his conviction that 
only a beginning had been made and that a prolonged struggle 
might be expected. Seward was skeptical relative to the 
accuracy of the bishop’s opinions on war and politics but 
both Bates and Blair were convinced. that, because he had 
travelled so extensively, he was especially well qualified to 
interpret the spirit of the nation. On numerous occasions 
Simpson was called to Washington to consult with the 
President on the general situation throughout the North. 
He was one of the few men who could influence the burly 
Stanton and was often employed by Lincoln for that pur- 
pose. And it was Simpson who spoke the final words at 
the tomb of the martyred president./* 

Bishop Simpson contributed to the winning of the war by 
his interest in the Sanitary Commission and the Christian 
Commission. The first was patterned after the work of 
Florence Nightingale in the Crimean War; the second was 
_ the idea of the Young Men’s Christian Association. It was 
in behalf of the former, and representing the President, that 
Simpson delivered a notable address in Philadelphia, in which 
he lauded the purposes and accomplishments of this organ- 
ization.14 When the Christian Commission was dissolved in 
February, 1866, it was Bishop Simpson who was chosen to 


302 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


deliver the final address in the House of Representatives. 
Here again, those who served their country—this time by 
their interest in the religious welfare of the soldiers—were 
praised for their endeavors and bidden to continue their 
work in other fields.¥® 

Simpson was a magnetic and powerful speaker. At 
Chillicothe, Ohio, members of Ohio and Cincinnati confer- 
ences were his audience. So excited did people become that 
handkerchiefs were waved, hats thrown in the air, and all 
the people were standing when the bishop finished his 
address.1® In November, 1864, he spoke to a packed house 
in the Academy of Music, New York City. Here he spoke 
of the possibilities of Americans rising from the humblest 
circumstances to places of responsibility and trust, and of the 
results of disunion. While he appealed to the religious 
nature of the people, he did not hesitate to say that he would 
not give a cent ona dollar for the debts owed by the 
Government if a line of division were run through the 
country from East to West. He declared that twenty years 
of war would be preferable to a settlement at that time.’? 
Lincoln’s only criticism of this address, which had previously 
been delivered in Washington, was that, in mentioning the 
great natural resources of the country, Simpson did not 
“strike ile.” Thereafter the oil interests were not forgotten.1® 

The influence of northern Methodists on the outcome of 
the war and the recognition of their patriotism may be illus- 
trated by their relation to four situations. The first of 
these was the maintenance and strengthening of Union senti- 
ment in western Virginia. A writer in a southern Methodist 
paper!” stated that, should the South be successful in western 
Virginia, northern Methodists would lose their influence in 
that section.2° The struggle for ecclesiastical supremacy 
probably increased the patriotic zeal of northern preachers. 
One of these declared that he did not know of half a dozen 
northern ministers who were in favor of the South. The 
relation between ecclesiastical and political forces was clearly 
stated. ‘“‘We preach in favor of Union. We pray for it, 
and we talk for it, and defend it among the people. If 
Western Virginia is saved, she will owe her salvation more 
to Methodism, under God, than to any other agency. The 


The Loyalty of Northern Methodists 303 


enemies of the Government are the enemies of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church.’*! It was a northern preacher, Gordon 
D. Battelle, who, with F. H. Pierpont, the first governor of 
West Virginia, was responsible for the inauguration of this 
new commonwealth.** The loyalty of western Virginia was 
credited to ministers and members of the northern Methodist 
Church in that section.?? 

That which was threatened by southerners in western 
Virginia was also predicted in Missouri—that Methodism of 
the northern type would be proscribed by Confederates if 
they were successful in the insurrection against the Govern- 
ment.*4 But in Missouri, also, there were a few northern 
Methodists who heroically defended the cause of freedom 
and Union. Led by Charles Elliott, the editor of the Cen- 
tral Christian Advocate, Methodists of St. Louis became the 
nucleus around which gathered the loyal people of the city 
and the state. Though threatened with arrest by pro-slavery 
men, Elliott defiantly displayed the Stars and Stripes from 
the office window of the Book Concern. Protests against 
the curtailment of loyalists’ rights were made by this editor, 
while many ministers joined the Union forces as privates, 
officers of infantry and chaplains. Patriotic meetings were 
held, war speeches delivered and the people encouraged in 
their support of the Union. Disloyalty was heavily con- 
demned and arguments of southerners refuted. In Missouri, 
the name of Elliott deserves to rank with that of Battelle in 
West Virginia.” 

The third incident which shows the place of the northern 
Methodist Church in the Civil War was the occupation of 
southern Methodist church property by northern Methodists. 
As early as April, 1862, bishops and the Missionary Board 
were being urged “to follow the army of the Union in its 
triumphant march with institutions, the discipline and the 
ministry of the Methodist Episcopal Church.” The means 
for such an extension of the Church’s work had been provi- 
dentially supplied, for there was a great surplus of ministers 
in eastern conferences. That patriotic considerations were 
not the only ones which influenced them is clear from the 
statement that this surplus had been “provided by the Head 
of the Church for our right and perpetual re-occupation of 


304 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


the territory which was wrested from us in the great seces- 
sion of 1844.’°6 In South Carolina, northerners were so 
extreme as to consider vacant churches of southern Metho- 
dists the legal property of the northern Church, and gave the 
punishment of the Church, South, as the reason for their 
action. But the editor of The Methodist showed that the 
United States Supreme Court had declared that these 
churches were the property of the Methodist Church, South. - 
“The recommendation of a measure so dishonorable in itself 
is well calculated to degrade the Church in the estimation of 
all sensible men.”2* 

Whether Methodist bishops urged that southern churches 
be turned over to northern Methodists is uncertain, although 
there is some evidence to support such a contention.?28 But 
on November 30, 1863, the Secretary of War issued his 
famous “Stanton-Ames Order,” in which northern generals 
were “directed to place at the disposal of Rev. Bishop Ames 
all houses of worship belonging to the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South, in which a loyal minister who has been 
appointed by a loyal Bishop of said church does not of- | 
ficiate.” ‘The purpose was to rally a strong union sentiment 
and aid in restoring “tranquility to the community and peace 
to the nation.” By Christmas, 1863, the order was being 
carried out. Wesley Chapel in Memphis, Tennessee, was 
handed over to Bishop Ames simply because a loyal minister 
was not in charge of the congregation. 

According to one southern apologist, northern Methodists 
soon began to take possession of southern churches without 
military orders.*! Bishop Simpson is charged with ordering 
southern Methodists to vacate McKendree Church in Nash- 
ville2* The same authority declares that the abuse of 
Stanton’s order became so intolerable that President Lincoln 
himself found it necessary to interpose his veto. In a state- 
ment of February 13, 1864, the President showed that the 
Secretary of War had exempted Missouri and that Kentucky 
never had been included in his order. He declared that the 
sole purpose of the Secretary’s order was to rally loyal 
Methodists to the Union cause in sections in which they had 
become disorganized. He even suggested that it might be 
necessary and desirable to withdraw the privileges of the 


The Loyalty of Northern Methodists 305 


northern Church entirely.3° The action of the President may 
have been responsible for resolutions of Missouri conference 
in 1864 commending Bishop Ames for not occupying south- 
ern churches in that state. The more probable reason is that 
many southern Methodist preachers who were loyal to the 
northern cause were joining the northern Church and they 
feared lest that movement might possibly be stopped.34 


Except for a few questions connected with the slavery 
issue, northern Methodist leaders had rather consistently held 
the view that as an organization they should not attempt to 
influence the political situation. But in the election of 1864 
it was easy to consider that event as a factor in the suppres- 
sion of the “hellish” rebellion. In this crisis, northern 
Methodist leaders did not hesitate. As early as February, 
1863 Elliott rejoiced that political parties were so badly 
shattered as a result of the war. Instead of the Republican 
party a Union or National party had been organized, whose 
chief purpose was the prosecution of the war until victory 
was attained. On the other hand, the Democratic party had 
become the organization in which might be found “neutrals, 
sympathizers, and rebels, or traitors.’”°5 When the Demo- 
crats nominated George B. McClellan, the action was openly 
ridiculed by the editor of Zion’s Herald.?® 


Northern conferences were also interested in the election 
of 1864, Wisconsin conference asserted that it was their 
duty to stir the Church and the people generally to a realiza- 
tion of the danger which threatened them if the Democrats 
were successful.2* South West German conference warned 
the people not to be deceived in the election, the intimation 
being that they should support Lincoln.3® After adopting 
resolutions in support of the Government, Rock River con- 
ference declared that, “inasmuch as participation in the 
choice of rulers and representatives is both a national privi- 
lege and a Christian duty,” they favored making all necessary 
arrangements so that, in case of a change of residence, “not 
a vote may be lost by which the national honor may be 
periled.”°9 Genesee conference asserted that the questions 
to be decided were not simply political but rather moral, 
and that the people would be divided into two parties: 
namely,“Patriots and Traitors.”*° 


306 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


One of the most important addresses delivered in behalf 
of Lincoln during the campaign of 1864 was that of Bishop 
Simpson, November 3, 1864. Before an immense New 
York audience, he gave his great lecture on “Our Country” 
which had created such an intense spirit of loyalty in many 
other cities. This speech was reported by the leading New 
York papers so that he spoke to the whole nation, It 
probably had a large part in completing the splendid victory 
obtained by the President in the November election.*! 

While the Methodist Episcopal Church as a whole was 
loyal to the Government, there were certain sections and 
groups that were decidedly unpatriotic. The disloyal senti- 
ment may have been the result of editorials in the Western 
Christian Advocate and the Balttmore Christian Advocate. 
In 1861, just before the inauguration of Lincoln, the editor 
of the former wrote: “We entirely agree with the notion 
that it would be highly impolitic to attempt to force an 
unwilling state to remain in the Union.”#? The latter paper 
published articles so favorable to the South that many 
members withdrew from the northern Church and supported 
the Confederacy.*3 


With such sentiments current in Methodist papers it is 
not surprising that there was disaffection even in the North. 
East Genesee conference was divided on the action that should 
be taken relative to national affairs.44 During the years 1863 
and 1864 there was no report by these ministers on “The 
State of the Country.”*° While Erie conference as a whole 
was loyal to the North,*® there were many instances of dis- 
loyalty among both ministers and members. October 14, 
1862, ministers of Meadville District met at Conneautville, 
Pennsylvania. Reports from various ministers indicated 
that there was considerable disaffection in their own terri- 
tory. The minister from Salem reported: “A good many 
sympathizers with the South. We preach as much war as 
we can without cutting their heads off.” The preacher from 
Saegertown said some sympathized with the South and 
created as much opposition as possible for those who were 
loyal. Another reported that all loyal men had gone to the 
war and left at home those who favored the rebellion. On 
the following day, the preachers held a patriotic meeting, 


The Loyalty of Northern Methodists 307 


with addresses by two of their number on “The Moral 
Aspects of the Present War.’’4? 

February 24, 1863, the same ministers met at Cochranton, 
Pennsylvania, and declared that it was not Christian to give 
support or extend sympathy to those who opposed the 
Government, discouraged enlistments or slandered ministers.*® 
June 9 of the same year they met at Linesville, Pennsylvania. 
Again there were reports from ministers. One said he had 
attempted to accommodate himself to disloyalists but had 
found it impossible, and he had launched out in an attack upon 
Slavery. Another declared he had shown his loyalty by 
cutting off all copperheads. Josiah Flower reported: “Stars 
and Stripes go with me. Disloyalists threatened to starve 
me but have not done it. ‘Copperheads’ will give nothing. 
Have expelled three.”*® Just how many ministers were 
disloyal is impossible to determine; but at the session of 
Erie conference in 1863 Judge Chaffee was requested to 
administer the oath of allegiance to members of the con- 
ference.°° 

While Philadelphia conference adopted loyal resolutions 
in 1862,51 these ministers had so far lost their enthusiasm by 
1863, that they asked the President to appoint a day of 
fasting and prayer, to be observed by all Christian people, 
for the termination of the rebellion.5* And while they had 
returned to their former loyalty by 1864, they declared that 
some ministers and members had been disloyal and should 
withdraw from the Church.5? 


Methodists of Baltimore conferences were probably more 
disloyal than any others in the northern Church. The fact 
that the conferences included territory kept in the Union 
only by force indicates that the people were not as loyal as 
was desired. While East Baltimore conference adopted 
resolutions favorable to the President in 1862,54 there was 
no expression in support of the Government the following 
year after the Emancipation Proclamation had been issued.** 
was defeated, 37 to 11. But a resolution was adopted which 

Especially interesting were the proceedirigs of Baltimore 
conference, which met at Georgetown, D. C. in 1863. One 
resolution, pledging the support of the conference to the 
Government and sympathy and prayers for the President 


308 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


read: ‘Resolved, That the President of the United States 
of America be respectfully requested to appoint a day of 
national fasting and prayer to Almighty God, that it may 
please him to bring our civil war to an end, and restore us 
unity, peace, and prosperity.” In the course of the debate 
on this resolution, the Rev. J. Bull, a chaplain of the 5th 
Maryland regiment, declared that “State matters ought not 
to be touched. He hated abolitionism as he did hell. Any 
resolution in reference to the President would destroy the 
Church. Pass it, and there were scores of Methodists in 
Baltimore and adjacent “places who will leave the Church.” 
Another minister said he was not in favor of the resolution 
because “he did not pray for the success of either the Federal 
or Confederate arms—he did not know which was right.”5® 
This lack of support of the Government and the President 
was unsparingly condemned. Writing in regard to the action 
of Baltimore conference, one observer concluded: “Such an 
exhibition of moral rottenness, as is here seen, cannot be 
paralleled outside the Baltimore Conference, unless in the 
conclaves of the Knights of the Golden Circle, or the Five 
Points in New York. After the late action of this body of 
moral lepers, if it did not stink in the nostrils of all decent 
people forever, then the religious condition of the country 
is most deplorable indeed. This is the second attempt made 
to pass resolutions—faintly and feebly endorsing the Govern- 
ment and condemning treason, with the same result. I have 
met a few of these Methodist wolves in sheep’s clothing, 
since the Conference has been in session, and so far as I 
have observed, they are generally a tobacco-chewing, cigar- 
smoking, and evidently whiskey-drinking set of rowdies, un- 
worthy in any respect to be recognized as gentlemen.” 
The sweeping claim to loyalty made by members and 
ministers of the Methodist Episcopal Church must be modi- 
fied to conform with the facts. The statement of President 
Lincoln can still be quoted by those who take pride in the 
war record of the Methodist Episcopal Church. But Lincoin, 
who was undoubtedly familiar with the fact that certain 
sections of the Church were disloyal, did not affirm that 
there were no traces of opposition in northern Methodism. 
He simply said that more had been done by this Church than 


The Loyalty of Northern Methodists 309 


by any other to support the Union cause. The situation in 
East Genesee and Erie conferences is difficult to explain, 
unless the “copperheads”? remained at home while the others 
joined the northern army. As for the border, the explana- 
tion is comparatively easy. Situated as these conferences were 
in slave territory, they simply reflected the opinions of the 
people whom they served. A strict adherence to the truth, 
therefore, will compel those who tell the story of Methodist 
achievement in the Civil War also to refer to the disloyalty 
which unquestionably existed in some conferences. 





Minutes of the Southern Illinois Conference, 1863, p. 37. 

Minutes of the Upper Iowa Conference, 1864, p. 23. 

Nicolay and Hay (editors), Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, 

Werner wots p. 622. Cf. Crooks, Life of Bishop Simpson, facing 

pp. -7. 

4. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., p. 4, col. 2; January 
2, 1861. Watson believed that the war could not last long. “It is 
useless to conceal the fact that a conflict is almost inevitable. It 
will be short, sharp, and bloody. The day for long wars is over.’ 

Salis DelG4 COlaiwe Mayas.) 186Gb 

6. Minutes of the Detroit Conference, 1864, p. 12. 

7. Minutes of the West Wisconsin Conference, 1862, p, 11. 

8. Conable, History of Genesee Conference. p. 674. 

9 


eho 


. Ibid., pp. 669-70. 

10. Elliott, South-Western Methodism, pp. 268-70. 

11. Ibid., p. 272. 

12. Crooks, Life of Bishop Simpson, p. 370, 

13. Ibid., pp. 373-5, 397-403. 

14. Ibid., pp. 391-5. 

15. Ibid., pp, 403-6. 

16. Ibid., pp. 378-80. 

17. Ibid., pp, 381-5. 

18. Ibid., pp. 372-3. 

19. The Nashville Christian Advocate. 

20. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., p. 210; col. 3; July 
10, 1861. 

21. Elliott, South-Western Methodism, pp. 264-5, 

22. Crooks, Life of Bishop Simpson, p. 283, and footnote. 

23. Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXXIII., p. 198, col. 
3; December 10, 1862. 

24. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., p. 219, col. 3; July 
10, 1861. 

25. Elliott, South-Western Methodism, pp. 248-6, 263-72, 298, 310-13, 
334-5, 365, 370-71, 396, 416-17, The latter part of the volume is a 
complete apology for the. North during the Civil War. 

26. Minutes of the New England Conference, 1862, pp. 23-4. That the 
northern Methodist Church should occupy southern churches was 
also the opinion of the Erie conference (see Fradenburgh, History 
of Erie Conference, Volume II., p. 529). 

27. The Methodist, Volume IV., p. 308, col. 6; October 3, 1863. 

28. Crooks, Life of Bishop Simpson, p. 397. 

29. Leftwich, Martyrdom in Missouri, Volume I, DP. 254; Fleming, 
Documentary History of Reconstruction, Volume II., p. 221. 

30. Fleming, Documentary History of Reconstruction, Volume II., p. 222. 

31. Leftwich, Martyrdom in Missouri, Volume L., pp. 179 ff. 


310 Eptscopal Methodism and Slavery 


SoLbids) DiliZeo. 
. Ibid., p. 264. Cf. Nicolay and Hay (editors), Complete works of 


Abraham Lincoln, Volume II., p. 481. Said Lincoln: ‘I fear it is 
liable to some abuses, but it is not quite easy to withdraw it 
entirely and at once.’’ 


. Elliott, South-Western Methodism, pp. 464-5. 
. pp. 416-17. 
. Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXXV., p. 142, cols. 


3-4; September 7, 1864. 


. Minutes of the Wisconsin Conference, 1864, p. 23. 

. The Liberator, Volume XXXIV., p. 170, col. 5; October 21, 1864. 
. Minutes of the Rock River Conference, 1864, pp. 25-6 

. Minutes of the Genesee Conference, 1864, pp. 11-12. 

. Crooks, Life of Bishop Simpson, pp. 381-6. 

. Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXVIII., p. 68, col. 1; Feb- 


ruary 27, 1861. 


. Elliott, South-Western Methodism, p. 299. 

. Minutes of the Hast Genesee Conference, 1862, p. 7. 

. Ibid., for the years 1863"and 1864. 

. Fradenburgh, History of the Erie Conference, Volume II., pp. 527-8. 
. Ibid. pp. 529-30. 

wLbid., ppls30-312 

Did: pW bod: 

. Ibid., pp. 532-3. 

. Minutes of the Philadelphia Conference, 1862, pp. 45-6. 

. Ibid., 1863, p. 48. 

. Ibid., 1864, pp. 44-5, 48. 
. Nicolay and Hay, Complete Works of Lincoln, Volume II., pp. 152-3. 
. Cf. Minutes of the Baltimore Conference for the year 1868. 

. The Liberator, Volume XXXIII., p. 53, cols. 2-3; April 3. 1868. 


CHAPTER XXVI 


THE LOYALTY OF SOUTHERN METHODISTS 


From a northern point of view, southerners of the Civil 
War period were the worst of traitors ; from a southern view- 
point, those who defended the South against invasion by 
northern “oppressors” were, and still are, considered worthy 
of the greatest honor. Had Jefferson Davis been approached 
on the subject, he could have written an appraisal of the 
loyalty of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, which, with 
all due regard for the facts, would have rivaled the statement 
of President Lincoln to the General Conference of 1864. 
To interpret the action of the southern Church from the 
southern point of view is the purpose of this chapter. 


Conferences in the extreme South gave their enthusiastic 
approval when plans for secession were under consideration. 
Five days before South Carolina seceded from the Union, 
the conference of that state declared in favor of the proposed 
action. The conference chairman asserted that “the interests 
of the Southern States are identical, and we must hang to- 
gether or hang by ourselves.’ They pledged their sympathy 
and support to the State in meeting northern attempts at 
suppression... Alabama conference, having stated that the 
election of Lincoln compelled southerners to defend their 
rights, pledged their support to Alabama, Florida and Missis- 
sippi, parts of which were included within the bounds of the 
conference.” Of the ninety-six preachers in Georgia con- 
ference, only nine were opposed to secession.” The attitude 
of all these conferences was substantially that of Shanondale 
Circuit of Baltimore conference. At a meeting held in 
Jefferson County, Virginia, November 19, 1860, they de- 
clared they would wait “until our wise statesmen and the 
people generally have taken their stand—then, as a Church, ~ 
we will follow, and not lead.”* In none of these resolutions 
was there an attempt to delay secession, but in every instance 
the support of the Church was promised to the states rather 
than the national government. 


311 


312 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


Southern Methodist papers were likewise for the South. 
The New Orleans Christian Advocate rejected the thought 
of submission to the North and urged that the rights of their 
section be maintained. In December, 1860, the editor of 
the Nashwille Christian Advocate advised the Southwest to 
support the coming Confederate Government and declared 
that all the people, and especially Methodists, desired a separa- 
tion from the North. Writing the following month, the 
same editor asserted that the secession of southern states from 
the Union might confidently be expected. Shortly after the 
struggle commenced, he again expressed himself in favor of 
secession and the Confederate Government. “We are for 
the Confederate States and their success in this war. Call 
you that secession? By that or any other name you like—dis- 
union, rebellion, revolution.” The people of Tennessee were 
urged to return a unanimous vote in favor of secession and 
in support of the Constitution of the Confederate States of 
America.? 

When the Civil War had become an actuality, southern 
Methodists were almost wholly on the side of the Confeder- 
acy. The bishops of the Church were loyal adherents of 
the provisional government.® Bishop Early offered prayer at 
the opening of the fourth session of the Confederate Con- 
gress.2 Bishop Andrew was especially active in his support 
of the South and wrote many articles to encourage the 
people.° In a statement printed in the Southern Christian 
Advocate in June, 1861, he reminded Confederate women that 
their relatives had been particularly loyal to the Revolutionary 
cause, and that, in the conflict with the North, he believed 
the old devotion would be equalled. He urged that southern- 
ers were fighting for their homes, and that, even if the North 
were successful against them—which he did not think was 
probable—abolitionists would be ruined because of the cost 
of the war. He believed that the South would be victorious 
because their purpose was righteous; because the South— 
“thanks to Lincoln’s folly and perfidy’—was firmly united; 
and because they were fighting for their homes. He further 
declared that the South had “an army made up of the very 
best material, and commanded by officers second to none on 
earth.” Finally, he asserted that many southern soldiers were 
earnest Christians, as were the people at home, and the united 


The Loyalty of Southern Methodists 313 


prayers of all the people in behalf of their cause would cer- 
tainly prevail.14 

The loyalty of southern Methodist papers to the Confed- 
eracy is abundantly shown by their statements during the 
war and by the action taken against them by the Washington 
Government and the generals of the North. The New 
Orleans Christian Advocate commended the attitude of 
southern people towards the new Government, and especially 
because the religious element was so prominent in everything 
they did. “The truth is, it zs a religious war, It is a defense 
of the rights of conscience.’”* A month later, it made the 
following comparison of Davis and Lincoln: ‘Davis is the 
very soul of courage, honor and chivalry: Lincoln is a 
cowardly sneak. In the midst of the present storm, Davis 
is calm, cool, generally cheerful, comprehensive in observa- 
tion, rigidly keeping his own counsel. Lincoln is filled with 
abject fear, drunk half the time, occasionally foolishly 
whistling to keep up his courage!® By June, 1862, the 
paper had been suspended because of the scarcity of paper and 
all the employees had joined the Confederate forces.14 


The Texas Christian Advocate was also loyal to the South. 
The editor, Dr. Carnes, wrote that he had learned with sur- 
prise that southern people were concerned about the attitude 
of Texas. In reply he declared that the opinion was “univer- 
sal, among white and black, that Texas ‘unrestrained by 
Divine grace,’ can whip any two of the Northern States.” 
The fact that a northern Methodist referred to the Pacific 
Methodist as “the pro-slavery—secession—rebellion—treas- 
onable sheet’! indicates that this southern Methodist paper 
was aiding the South. The Owachita Conference Journal 
saw the hand of God in the fact that their crops, which had 
been very light the previous years, gave promise of an abun- 
dant harvest. The people were urged to “build, plant, wor- 
ship, erect schools, press on with every glorious enterprise. 
- War against unbelief, lying, cheating, abolitionism, whiskey 
and the devil ; and in humble faith anticipate the day when the 
land shall have her rest and be overspread by a Sabbath day 
of holiness,”’46 

The St. Louis Christian Advocate aided the southern 
cause at every opportunity. The editor, Dr. M’Anally, 
praised the work of southerners and encouraged the people as 


314 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


much as possible. He was an associate of the editor of the 
Missourt State Journal, and after the suppression of that 
paper by the United States Government, the subscribers of 
the Journal subscribed for the Advocate.17 M’Anally 
attempted to show that he was not disloyal to the northern 
Government, but he had little success in his representations 
to the military authorities.1® When the North obtained some 
success in Missouri and the West, he saw only desolation 
for the country because of the northern invasion.?® In the 
Spring of 1862 the Advocate was suppressed and the editor 
arrested and thrown into prison in St. Louis.?° In 1863 he 
was sentenced to banishment to the South, but the sentence 
was never carried out. In connection with this sentence, 
the Missourt Democrat, a paper in sympathy with the North, 
stated: “His (M’Anally’s) paper, the Advocate was a viper 
concern, and, while permitted by the military authorities to 
exist, did more, in an insidious way, to poison the public 
mind of Missouri toward tha (Washington) Government 
than almost any other treasonable agency among us.”} 

The Nashville Christian Advocate published the Consti- 
tution of the Confederate States of America,?* and also, with 
evident satisfaction, printed replies of the governors ‘of 
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky and 
Missouri, refusing the request for troops with which to 
suppress the rebellion.2? The editor urged the South to 
unite and resist the attempt of the North to coerce them. 
Comparing the resources of the two sections, he concluded 
that the South was much superior. “They have more 
soldiers: we the better cause. Their fanatical hordes may 
descend upon us from the North and Fast, and they will 
doubtless seek to arouse against us Indians on the South and 
West, and to convert the docile slaves in our midst into 
assassins.” But all this strength would prove unavailing 
for “what are all these against a people fighting for rights 
and homes? A people in the right, and whose arms and valor 
have won for the old Union its chief military glories? We 
have no fear for the result; none at all.’ The people were 
warned, however, to save their powder, repair their guns and 
form organizations of home guards. The southern soldier 
was considered irresistible—“One true Southern man can 
chase a dozen Yankees.”23 


The Loyalty of Southern Methodists 315 


The Publishing House at Nashville further showed that 
southern Methodists approved the Confederacy by issuing a 
“Confederate Almanac” in which the Richmond Government 
was recognized and praised, while the Washington Govern- 
ment was denounced.?4 Under the auspices of the Soldiers 
Tract Society, thousands of hymn-books for soldiers were 
printed.*> In 1862, when an officer of the United States 
army visited the Publishing House, he found that the base- 
ment of the building had been used to manufacture Con- 
federate war materials.2° Because of its opposition to the 
North, the Book Concern was closed and later confiscated by 
United States officials.°? The editor and publisher went 
further south,?® and the paper was combined with the 
Southern Christian Advocate and published at Atlanta, 
Georgia.”® 

The two leading southern Methodist papers east of the 
mountains were those at Charleston and Richmond. We 
have noted that the former was compelled to suspend pub- 
lication and unite with the Nashville Christian Advocate. The 
Richmond Christian Advocate asserted that, if the Lincoln 
Government. sought to subjugate the South, southerners 
would have the consciousness that they had not started the 
war. Therefore, the editor advised the people to defend 
themselves, even though they might be compelled to destroy 
northerners who were sent against them.*° 

Most conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, undoubtedly supported the Southern cause. The fact 
that Kansas and Missouri conferences heartily approved the 
work of the St. Louis Christian Advocate and especially the 
attitude of that paper towards the war shows conclusively that 
they favored the South.44 Missouri and St. Louis confer- 
ences of the Church, South, were required to take the “Test 
Oath’” because they were supposed to be assembling for the 
purpose of aiding the Confederacy. Early in the year 1862, 
Mississippi conference “most fully and heartily” declared 
their “loyalty to the Government of the Confederate States 
of America.’”’% That southern conferences were generally 
loyal to their sectoin is also shown by the fact that Holston 
conference in eastern Tennessee suspended all of their num- 
ber who were not opposed to the North.** 

With southern leaders and conferences loyal to the Rich- 
mond Government, it was only natural that ministers sup- 


316 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


ported the Confederacy. Elliott declares repeatedly that 
they were opposed to the North and accuses them of being 
responsible for many questionable acts—which means that 
they would be considered by the South as faithful to their 
own homes and institutions.*° Dr. Carnes, editor of the 
Texas Christian Advocate, became commander of a regi- 
ment made up mostly of Methodist preachers and laymen.*® 
Of the two hundred southern Methodist preachers in 
Missouri, very few were untrue to the South. Elliott says © 
that “many were in the rebel army, many were in the most 
notoriously rebel communities, some led guerrilla bands, and 
a valiant few went . . .. to Canada.”%’ One southern 
Methodist chaplain wrote the editor of the Nashville 
Christian Advocate as follows: “Serene Doctor: The Lord 
grant you good health, peace, plenty, and everlasting deliv- 
erance from Lucifer and Lincoln.’ 

While loyal to the South, two addresses by the Rev. D. 
S. Doggett were on a very high plane. The first was de- 
livered in the Fall of 1862 in Broad Street Methodist 
Church in Richmond, on the day of thanksgiving and prayer 
appointed by the Confederate President. ‘The people re- 
joiced exceedingly over their military successes. The ser- 
mon was a very moderate statement of the southern posi- 
tion.2® April 4, 1864, he preached another sermon on the 
occasion of the National Fast. The situation from the 
southern viewpoint was unfavorable, and the minister 
sought to revive the waning hopes of the people in the Con- 
federacy. He declared that he was still hopeful of victory. 
He spoke of the heresies and divisions in northern churches, 
and declared that the destruction of the Lincoln Govern- 
ment was imminent. Considering the condition of the South 
and the passions which had been aroused, this may likewise 
be considered a very temperate utterance.*° 

But disloyalty to the Confederacy was not entirely lack- 
ing. We have already noted that Holston conference in 
1862 expelled all of their number who were favorable to 
the North, and that in 1864 most of them declared their 
loyalty to the Washington Government.*! The most obvious 
disloyalty to the Davis Government was found in Kentucky 
conference. In the first session of the conference after the 
commencement of the Civil War, the question of adherence 


The Loyalty of Southern Methodists 317 


to either the South or the North was decided in favor of the 
latter. Only eighteen or twenty ministers in Kentucky sup- 
ported the rebellion, while sixty-four preferred to remain in 
the Union. The conference further refused to elect any 
secessionist to the General Conference which was to have 
met in May, 1862, at New Orleans. Finally, they voted to 
observe the day of fasting and prayer appointed by Presi- 
dent Lincoln.4* With the occupation of the state by Fed- 
eral troops it was comparatively easy to maintain the position 
taken in 1861. The conference of 1864, while deciding to 
remain a part of the southern Methodist Church, was over- 
whelmingly in support of the Union.* 


In sections of the South where ministers were disloyal 
to the Richmond Government it is safe to conclude that 
the laity were also disaffected. Particularly in Missouri 
does there seem to have been wide-spread dissatisfaction with 
the. southern Church because of its support of the Confed- 
erate Government. Members of that Church promised to 
secure subscriptions for the northern paper,** and protests 
were common against the St. Louis Christian Advocate.*° 
Methodists at Louisiana, Missouri, protested vigorously 
against the secessionist Advocate because of its support of 
the rebellion.4® Later, they joined the Methodist Episcopal 
Church because it was loyal to the Federal Government.** 
This withdrawal from the southern Church was encouraged 
by southern Methodists who were loyal to the Union, and 
by leaders of the northern Methodist Church who believed 
they were serving not only their country but also the cause 
of pure religion by such proselyting.*® 

The record of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, is 
one upon which an apologist for the Confederacy can look 
with pride. It is true that there were many instances of 
disloyalty to the South along the border, but most Methodist 
ministers and people whole-heartedly supported the insur- 
rectionary government. Generally speaking, in both Metho- 
dist churches, loyalty to the section increased the further 
the people were removed from the “bloody ground” which 
had been set aside by the self-interest, avarice, and greed of 
both denominations during the years beginning with 1844 
and ending with 1865. Naturally, the number of adher- 
ents to either Church in this section varied with the success 
of opposing armies.* 


31 


Xe 
Advocate, Volume X., p. 22, col, 2; January 15, 1862. 

2. Elliot, South-Western Methodism, p. 229. 

3. Richmond Enquirer, Volume LVII.; November 30, 1860. 

4, Elliot, South-Western Methodism, p. 229. 

5. Ibid., p. 226. 

6. Ibid., p. 2380. 

7. Ibid. pp. 281-2. 

8. See Smith, Life and Times of George F. Pierce, pp. 436-88; Smith, 
Life and Letters of Andrew, pp. 435 ff.; Redford, Life and Times. 
of Bishop Kavanaugh, p. 411; Northwestern Christian Advocate, 
Volume IX., p. 302, col. 3; September 18, 1861. 

9. Elliot, South-Western Methodism, p. 377, 

10. Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XXV.; September and Oc- 
tober, 1861. 

11. Elliot, South-Western Methodism, pp. 280-81. 

12. Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XXV.; June 14, 1861. The 
conviction of the New Orleans Christian Advocate that the war 
was of a religious nature is further illustrated by the following 
passage quoted from that paper: ‘‘Southern people feel profoundly 
assured that they are fighting for the only rights, the only com- 
fortable life, and the only true social and political status the negro 
can ever have. They feel that they are fighting for the only true 
Christian civilization they can ever enjoy, either in this or any 
other country. Slavery is rapidly coming to be regarded as a 
providential system of African civilization. It has long since come 
to be regarded as a ‘power’ in general civilization; now, the idea 
of the present and eternal welfare of the Africans is involved in 
its defence. Southern men defend slavery now upon the same 
principle and with the same spirit as they do their religion, their 
homes, their wives and children, their personal honor and inde- 
pendence.’’ (Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., p. 318, 
cols. 4-5; October 2, 1861). 

138. The Liberator, Volume XXXL, p. 93, col. 5; June 14, 1861. 

14. Eliott, South-Western Methodism, p. 397. 

15. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume X., p. 22, col. 2; January 
15, 1862. 

16. Ibid., Volume IX., p. 219, col. 4; July 10, 1861. 

17. Elliott, South-Western Methodism, pp. 290-91. 

18. Ibid., pp. 303-4. 

19. Ibid., pp. 376-7. Said M’Anally: ‘‘What a scourge is upon it! (the 


8 Eptscopal Methodism and Slavery 


Elliot, South-Western Methodism, p. 228. Cf. Northwestern Christian 


country) What chastisements it is undergoing! Who that really 
loves it can reflect upon its present condition, without feelings of 
bitterest anguish! Distracted, disrupted, torn, and bleeding! Its 
material interests all marred—its social relations almost broken 
up—its educational and religious interests all languishing! And 
the prospect for the future more dark, if possible, than the aspects 
of the present! Think of the bitterness of feeling—the blood- 
thirstiness and cruelty which are being manifested—the hatred 
and vindictiveness of one part of the people toward the other! 
Who, twelve months ago, would have believed the people of this 
country could ever have been led to indulge the feelings they have 
recently manifested? How total, in many instances, has been the 
disregard to private rights, private interests, and property! Think 
of the destruction of homes—the waste of towns and villages, and 
the desolations of whole tracts of country that have occurred— 
the thousands of innocent women and children who have been 
rendered houseless and homeless—and the tens of thousands of 
sober, industrious men, made desperate by the sufferings and 
privations they have endured.” h 

To this the editor of The Methodist responded: ‘All this is 
sternly true, but what is the guilty cause? It is the Southern 
treason against a righteous and Constitutionally administered Gov- 
ernment. All this woe comes from the men with whom the 
Advocate has been in tacit alliance. Why does it not turn its 


48. 


The Loyalty of Southern Methodists 319 


doleful admonitions toward them? The article from which we 
quote has no allusion to the reprobate culprits who inflict this 
misery on the country. Such is the maneuver of this Western 
editor. Why does he not treat with the retreating foes of his 
country ?’’ 


. Ibid., p. 388. 
. Ibid., p. 426. 
t Nashville Christian Advocate, Volume XXV., February 21, 1861. 


. Ibid., April 25, 1861. 
S Elliott, South-Western Methodism, p. 465. 
. A copy, published in 1863, is in the Confederate Museum at Rich- 


mond, Virginia. 


. Elliott, South-Western Methodism, pp. 394-5. 
. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume X., p. 180, col. 3; June 


4, 1862. Cf. Ibid., p. 206, col. 3; June 25, 1862. 


. Elliott, South-Western Methodism, p. 382. 
. Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXXIII., p. 102, col. 


3; June 25, 1862. 


. The Liberator, Volume XXXI., p. 93; col. 5; June 14, 1861. 

. Elliott, South-Western Methodism, pp. 337-8. 

. Leftwich, Martyrdom in Missouri, Volume II., pp. 64-71. 

. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume X., p. 86, col. 4; March 


12, 1862. 


. Ibid., p. 406, col. 4; December 17, 1862. In August, 1864, the 


ministers of Holston conference declared that one hundred twenty 
of their number were known to be loyal to the North and that 
forty more were supposed to be. (Nicolay and Hay-—editors— 
Abraham Lincoln, A History, Volume VI., p. 333). 


. Elliott, South-Western Methodism, pp. 363, 382, 395, 414, 421. 

. Ibid., p. 3965. 

MeL bide uD) 4e5. 

. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., p. 269, col. 1; 


August 21, 1861. 


. Doggett, A Nation’s Ebenezer (Pamphiet). 
. Doggett, The War and Its Close (Pamphlet). 
. It is significant that in 1868, the southern Holston conference 


appealed to the Genera] Conference of the northern Church for a 
return of property carried over by these ministers in 1864. (Cf. 
Leftwich, Martyrdom in Missouri, Volume I., pp. 267-740.) 


. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., p. 398, col. 3; 


December 11, 1861. 


. Stevenson, Journal, Volume I., pp. 216-19. Stevenson and seven- 


teen other ministers withdrew from the southern Church. 


. Elliott, South-Western Methodism, p. 300. 

. Ibid., pp, 412-13. 

. Ibid., p. 336. 

. Ibid., pp. 482-3. As a reason for their action they said: “. 


when the rebellion culminated in open hostilities we had the morti- 
fication to see, not only in the seceding States, but in our own . 
State, ali the official powers and authorities of our Church, with 
a very few honorable exceptions, arrayed against the Government 
with all their influence and power. Many of the ministers not 
only refused to utter or to tolerate the utterance by others of the 
usual] prayers for the authorities and officers of the Government, 
but, on the contrary, openly and publicly prayed for the success of 
traitors in arms against it; publicly urged, by speeches and other- 
wise, the young men of the country to commit the crime of treason 
against the Government; urged them to kill, burn and destroy— 
to ‘wade to their knees in hldod* to destroy that Government framed 
by Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, and their compeers 
.We are unwilling to be made to bow down and worship an 
institution as a divine inheritance which had its origin in a cruelty 
and barbarity without a parallel in the history of the world as the 
price Of our Church relations and Christian privileges.” 
Leftwich, Martyrdom in Missouri, Volume I., pp. 201-2. See also, 


320 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


Minutes of the Maine Conference, 1864, p. 24; and Elliott, South- 
Western Methodism, pp. 412, 414, 428. 

49. One of the most interesting questions connected with any war is 
the destruction of universa] conceptions of religion. Jehovah 
becomes nothing more than a tribal deity, who is expected to 
bless his own adherents and curse those who are considered 
‘‘enemies.”’ oH: a 


CHAPTER XXVII 


ANSWERED PRAYER 


While northern Methodists proclaimed that the Civil War 
was being waged to preserve the Union, they also declared 
that the contest was God’s chastisement visited upon the 
nation for permitting the evil of slavery to exist for almost 
a century after the Declaration of Independence had been 
issued.1 Slavery was declared to be the underlying cause of 
the civil strife which had arrayed brother against brother, 
and father against son.2, Every endeavor which had for its 
purpose the destruction of human bondage in Church and 
State had the active support of northern Methodists. 

Writing of the abolition of slavery, George M. Weston 
said in 1857: “That it will not take place in our day and 
generation, is as indutiable as anything future can be.’* But 
scarcely had war begun until measures prejudicial to the 
slaveholding interests were proposed. Previous to May, 1861 
northern generals had sedulously protected the vested rights 
of slaveholders, General Butler had even offered the use of 
his troops in Maryland to suppress a threatened servile in- 
surrection.* This position of non-interference with slavery 
except to enforce the law was supported by the editor of 
the Northwestern Christian Advocate, who declared in 
January, 1861, that “revolting as is the Fugitive Slave law 
to our feelings, it is the duty of the government to enforce 
it until the sovereign people shall repeal it.”> But when 
General Butler, who had been placed in command at Fortress 
Monroe in May, 1861, conceived the happy thought of call- 
ing slaves who had run away from Confederate masters 
“contraband,” and the Government had given its approval, 
the same editor commended “Butler’s lawyer-like position.”® 

During the summer of 1861 the Northwestern Christian 
Advocate set forth the advantages of freedom for slaves and 
the absolute necessity of doing something to destroy slavery. 
The resolution of Erie conference, expressing the hope that 


321 


322 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


slavery would soon be abolished and no longer control 
national affairs, was printed.’ Three New York publications 
were quoted to show that when slavery was destroyed, white 
men would go to the South, improved machinery would be 
introduced, the power of politicians would be minimized, and 
the two sections and the churches would be re-united? 
August 7, Eddy said that leaders at Washington might “as 
well commence on the word liberation, It will come harder 
to their vocal organs than the others, but they will be obliged 
to come to it. They may halve it, or syllable it, or letter it, 
any way that its bold, manly pronunciation can be learned 
easiest, but learned it must be.’? 

The editor of the Northern Christian Advocate was also 
insistent in his demands that slavery must be abolished. “Let 
the cause of disunion be removed and the Union is safe. Let 
‘that most prolific source of anarchy, misrule, robbery and 
treason be swept away, and there will be no farther anxiety © 
for the perpetuity of an excellent government. If we must 
have a civil war, with all its evils—and they are many—let it 
be for a sufficient cause. Let the freedom and moral eleva- 
tion of 4,000,000 of human beings now in a bondage of 
intolerable cruelty, be reckoned into the results of such a war. 
In a word, let us accept the issue the rebels themselves offer 
—SLAVERY OR NO SLAVERY. In such a conflict, God, 
who hears the cry of the oppressed, will be on our side, and 
the sympathy of every Christian nation on earth will be with 
us,’’10 

When President Lincoln revoked the order of General 
Fremont, decreeing freedom to slaves of rebels in his district, 
his action immediately raised a storm of protest among north- 
ern radicals. In reply to O. H. Browning, September 22, 
1861, the President said that the general’s order was not 
justified. He pointed out that a commander might seize a 
pasture for military purposes but the land was not thereby 
taken from the owner. The same was true of slaves. A 
proclamation of this kind Lincoln labelled as “simply dic- 
tatorship.” “It assumes that the general may do anything he 
pleases — confiscate the land and free the slaves of loyal 
people, as well as disloyal ones. And going the whole figure, 
I have no doubt, would be more popular with some thought- 


Answered Prayer 323 


less people than that which has been done! But I cannot 
assume this reckless position, nor allow others to assume it 
on my responsibility.” If he should do so, it would mean 
that he as President would seize and exercise legislative 
functions of government. 


The editor of The Methodist, a ridetloncisiat paper which 
had been established in 1860 for the purpose of holding 
border Methodists in the northern Church, supported the 
President. It was noted that it was not the purpose of the 
Chief Executive or the generals to abolish slavery in sections 
where the people were loyal. ‘The president, his counsellors, 
and Congress have each and all steadily resisted the clamors 
of the zealots who have urged that emancipation be made 
the direct object of the war.’ He declared that the North 
was dealing only with rebellion against the Government, and 
that slavery would be dealt with in seceding states according 
to the exigencies of the case.!* 

But this writer stood alone. Detroit!’ and Minnesota! 
conferences cordially supported Fremont rather than the 
President. The editor of the Northwestern Christian Advo- 
cate wrote: “The General is right. The administration may 
not sustain him, but the people will.’ The editor then gave 
his argument in favor of emancipating the slaves. He as- 
serted that the people of the North were being taxed to 
suppress rebellion and that taxes had been cheerfully accepted. 
“At the same time we demur to the enforced collection of 
this revenue if it is to be used in maintaining the right of 
our foes to their property in human flesh. Let every bonds- 
man with a rebel master, be made a freeman and bid to 
defend his freedom and newly-found self-ownership against 
all comers.”2® And as chairman of the Rock River confer- 
ence committee on the “State of the Nation,” Dr. Eddy 
presented a resolution which declared that the question of 
slavery would “have to be met as the hardy ‘Pathfinder’ met 
it in his proclamation, which rang like the shout of an angel, 
‘their slaves, if they have any, are free MEN! 16 

When President Lincoln presented his plan to compensate 
any state for a part of the loss sustained through emancipat- 
ing slaves, Thaddeus Stevens dubbed it “the most diluted 
milk and water-gruel proposition ever made to the American 


324 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


nation.”!7 Among Methodists there was a division of opinion. 
Southern Illinois conference favored the plan and especially 
the colonization of the negroes.18 New York East confer- 
ence considered it perfectly fair that “the States 

share in the expense necessary to be incurred in affecting 
that object.” Even New England conference “hailed with 
pleasure and heartily” endorsed “the late emancipation meas- 
ure of the President.’’”° 


Eddy was less cordial. March 12, he said that plans for 
purchasing slaves of loyal people were being considered,7! 
but his statement two weeks later showed that he disapproved 
the President’s proposal. One of the chaplains of the Union 
army declared that the proposed emancipation scheme was 
the greatest blow ever struck at slavery, although he consid- 
ered it only an enlargement of General Fremont’s proclama- 
tion. Lincoln’s measure he believed to be only a halting step 
in the right direction, and yet he was willing to say: 
“Abraham Lincoln! Huis name shall be as dear while living, 
his monument as high when dead, and his fame as enduring 
as our own Washington’s—the President who gave slavery 
the first direct blow with the strong arm of the nation.” 
Eddy commented: “The extract gives some fine specimens 
ofihytalutin’ 77? 

When Congress considered the measure declaring all slaves 
in the District of Columbia free,?* the law met with the ap- 
proval of Methodists. After Congress had acted but before 
the President had affixed his signature, there was consider- 
able doubt as to whether he would sign it, and much specula- 
tion as to whether Congress could muster a two-thirds 
majority to pass it over his veto.*4 


When their fears were found to be without foundation, the 
comment of conferences and papers was very favorable. 
Rock River conference rejoiced: “Slavery has been swept 
from the District of Columbia!”25 Eddy was especially jubi- 
lant: striking headlines, the doxology, and the president’s 
proclamation of a day of thanksgiving and prayer, appeared 
in the columns of the Northwestern Christian Advocate. 
Lincoln’s statements against slavery were quoted, especially 
that in which he said that the nation could not continue half 
slave and half free, and the conclusion of the editor given— 


Answered Prayer 325 


“That the rebellion in the sugar and cotton states can be 
suppressed and slavery preserved, we seriously doubt.” 
Another writer declared that the act of Congress was “‘one 
of the greatest victories of the war.” He said some would 
ask: “But what is the world going to do for cotton?” And 
he answered: “The world can better afford to do without 
cotton, than it can afford to have it under a system which 
sets at defiance the laws of God and humanity.” He as- 
serted that if the war continued more than that Summer, 
the destruction of slavery would become an absolute necessity, 
for “the country can not endure the financial burdens of this 
war for two years more, nor do we believe it can for one 
year more.” Either slavery must go, or the Republic would 
be destroyed." 


At least one Methodist paper was interested in the sup- 
pression of the African slave-trade. When Captain Gordon 
was captured and sentenced for slave-trading, the editor of 
the Northwestern Christian Advocate said: “Let us have no 
maudlin pity for his fate. He ought to die! The wretch 
who could steal 99 human beings is unfit to live 
Let the stern penalty be executed, and with it will come the 
strangling of Northern participation in the slave-trade.’#8 
Six months later, when a treaty to suppress the African 
slave-trade had been accepted by Great Britain and the 
United States, Eddy was unstinted in his praise.?9 


The proposal to confiscate slaves of rebels which were used 
against the North met with the general approval of northern 
Methodists.2° Only Rock River conference objected that 
“mere confiscation” was not enough, “for that makes slaves 
our property and not theirs; and the United States must not 
be a great slaveholder.’*+ But the following Spring, when 
the measure was being warmly debated in Congress, Eddy, 
who was responsible for the resolutions of Rock River con- 
ference, declared: ‘““The Congressional hesitancy in adopting 
some plain law of confiscation is amazing. Do those gentle- 
mien believe that the expenses of this war should be borne by 
loyal men? Do they legislate upon that theory? If so, their 
constituents differ radically. They believe that those who 
dance should pay the piper, and demur to defraying all the 
expenses of this huge carnival of death, gotten up by slavery 


326 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


propagandists.” He contended that there was no “dignity so 
sublime gathering about the right of property in man, in 
black men,” that slaves should not be appropriated under 
confiscation acts.?” 


From the time that Union forces began to march into slave 
territory, radicals began to demand the abolition of slavery. 
Three Methodist papers were especially insistent that drastic 
action be taken. According to Eddy, the rights of slave- 
holders were protected only if they were loyal to the Federal 
Government. He said various arguments would be advanced 
against emancipation—that it had proved a failure in British 
Colonies and that white men had been reduced to bankruptcy. 
Further, it was asserted that freedmen would not work be- 
cause they believed that “freedom” meant freedom from 
work. These arguments were dismissed by Eddy who com- 
mented: “These and kindred sayings are repeated oracularly 
by the London Times, the Washington Star, and sundry 
slavery-loving sheets much nearer Lake Michigan.’ 


That this Chicago paper should have been radical is to 
have been expected, but the same is true of formerly con- 
servative Methodist papers. October 16, 1861, the Western 
Christian Advocate carried an article by O. A. Brownson, a 
Catholic, in which he urged emancipation as a war measure.*4 
In June, 1862, the editor published an article of his own on 
“The Emancipation Question” in which he complained of 
the slowness of the Administration to act on this important 
subject. He confessed that there were wide differences of 
opinion as to the kind of manumission—some asking for 
immediate, unconditional emancipation, while others favored 
manumission and deportation. The first was the more popu- 
lar with extremists, while the latter was supported by many 
Congressmen and by the President. Kingsley said that the 
argument most frequently heard against emancipation was 
that negroes were not fitted for freedom. But he held that 
freedom did not imply the right to vote, else white women 
and children were slaves. The question of race equality was 
not involved in the discussion. He admitted, however, that 
this was the greatest stumbling block in the way of total 
emancipation. This explained the plan to colonize the 
negroes. ‘One may blush for such a puerile exhibition of 


Answered Prayer 327 
mingled meanness and malignity,”’ said he, “‘but since it ex- 
ists, it would be unwise to ignore it in the discussion of the 
practical relations of the slavery question, especially so long 
as it dictates the policy of the Chief Magistrate of the 
nation.” 


The third paper to urge immediate emancipation was the 
Christian Advocate and Journal. Early in the year 1862, 
the editor, under the heading “Emancipation of the Slaves,” 
urged the move as a military necessity.°° A more definite 
alliance with the most radical element was made in an editor- 
ial which urged emancipation for the following reasons: 
(1) The South would be ‘compelled to recall troops in the 
field to suppress slave uprisings; (2) “it would diminish the 
number of slaves and consequently the supplies of the south- 
ern army”; (3) it would increase the number of laborers and 
soldiers in the northern army; (4) it would “remove the 
only cause of the war”; and (5) “it would prevent any for- 
eign intervention in our affairs” for “England would not dare 
to fight us, or fight for our adversaries if we fought for 
emancipation and the South against.”%? 


Whether or not President Lincoln was influenced by popu- 
lar clamor is impossible to determine. Certain it is that 
before July 13, 1862 he showed the greatest impatience with 
those who were over-zealous for negroes. When Secretary 
Chase and others became especially interested in having slaves 
used as soldiers, he said: “What is all this itching to get 
niggers into our lines.”°8 And when Sumner urged that an 
appeal ‘““be made to the slaves, and the rear-guard of the 
rebellion be changed into the advance guard of the Union,” 
Lincoln answered that “he would at once, if he did not fear 
that half the army would lay down their arms and three 
other States would join the rebellion.”*® 


But, commencing July 13, he seriously considered issuing 
an emancipation proclamation.4® On July 22, the President 
submitted to the Cabinet the first draft of his famous Eman- 
cipation Proclamation. Several suggestions were made by 
cabinet members but only one was acceptable—namely, that 
of Seward who urged that it should not be published until 
after a northern victory. Seward’s thought, said Lincoln, 
was “that it would be considered our last shriek on the 


328 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


retreat.’”41 It was discussed at two successive cabinet meet-- 
ings, and by the President and individual members of that: 
group. After the battle of Antietam, the Cabinet was again. 
convened, and the proclamation issued, September 22, 1862.4 

While President Lincoln waited for a victory, the agitation 
for emancipation continued. Upper lowa conference resolved 
to at once “memorialize the President of the United States: 
in reference to the immediate emancipation of every slave in. 
the United States.”43 Minnesota conference could not “re- 
frain from expressing an ardent desire that this frightful 
source of so much evil may be crushed by military power as 
soon as such a measure shall be deemed practicable.”44 West 
Wisconsin conference declared that such a document would 
“fill heaven with joy and hell with terror. It would make 
every loyal heart rejoice, and every rebel heart quake with 
fear.” The army would be greatly inspired, and the rebellion 
be given a death-blow. “It would send the name of 
Abraham Lincoln down to posterity by the side of that of 
George Washington, forever honored—the one for freeing 
his country from the oppression of Great Britain, and the 
other for freeing it from the infinitely greater curse of 
slavery.”*° Fully approving all these sentiments, Eddy kept 
alive the agitation in favor of the radical move.*® 

During the two months after the President first presented 
the Proclamation to the Cabinet, there were two events of 
special interest for our study. The first was the publication 
of Horace Greeley’s “The Prayer of Twenty Millions,” in 
which the President was rather roughly handled ;** and the 
reply of the President to this attack.48 The editor of the 
Northwestern Christian Advocate commented upon the cor- 
respondence between Greeley and Lincoln and concluded: 
“We admit the great duty of the President is to save the 
Union, and we are sure he cannot save it and slavery, HE 
CANNOT. Now let him go ahead and ‘SAVE THE 
UNTONY ise 

The second event of interest was the visit of the Com- 
mittee of clergymen from Chicago to President Lincoln, just 
nine days before the proclamation was issued.5° Dr. William 
Patton and Dr. John Dempster, first president of Garrett 
Biblical Institute, composed the committee, who represented 
the Christian men of Chicago.°t According to the unsym- 





Answered Prayer 329, 


pathetic Chicago Times, they represented “the religious com- 
munity of Chicago” who “believe that the country is now. 
suffering under Divine judgments for the sin of oppression, 
and who favor the adoption of a memorial to the President 
of the United States, urging him to issue a decree of eman- 
cipation, as a sign of national repentance as well as a mili- 
tary necessity.” The Times pointed out that Providence 
would presumably be against the South, since that section 
held more slaves than the north, but the success of the Con-. 
federates did not indicate that such was the fact.*! 


In his, reply to the ministers, Lincoln said he had been 
considering the subject for months. He had received op-. 
posite opinions “from religious men who are equally certain 
that they represent the divine will.” One side must be mis- 
taken, and perhaps in some points both were in error. Said 
Lincoln: “I hope it will not be irreverent for me to say that 
if it is probable that God would reveal his will to others on 
a point so connected with my duty, it would be supposed he 
would reveal it directly to me; for unless I am more de- 
ceived in myself than I often am, it is my earnest desire to 
know the will of Providence in this matter. And if I can 
learn what it is I will do it. These are not, however, the 
days of miracles, and I suppose it will be granted that I am 
‘not to expect a direct revelation. I must study the plain 
physical facts of the case, ascertain what is possible, and 
learn what appears to be wise and right.”°? 


The President then presented some of the difficulties in the 
way of emancipation. After reciting incidents which had 
come to his attention to show that there was considerable 
difference of opinion as to the advisability of issuing such a 
document, he raised the question of the proclamation’s utility. 
“What good would a proclamation of emancipation from me 
do, especially as we are now situated? I do not want to 
issue a document that the whole world will see must neces-. 
sarily be inoperative, like the Pope’s bull against the comet. 
Would my word free the slaves, when I cannot even enforce 
the Constitution in the rebel States? Is there a single court, 
or magistrate, or individual that would be influenced by it. 
there?” He then spoke of the laws of Congress in regard © 
to the slaves of rebels and declared that so far as he knew: 


330 Eptscopal Methodism and Slavery 


no slave had been induced to come to the Union lines by — 
acts of Congress, And if they should come, he asserted that 
the North could not care for the millions of negroes in the 
South. Concerning the effect of the proposed document 
upon the border states, Lincoln said: “I will mention 
another thing, though it meet only your scorn and contempt. 
There are fifty thousand bayonets in the Union armies from 
the border slave States. It would be a serious matter if, in 
consequence of a proclamation such as you desire, they 
should go over to the rebels.” He admitted that the procla- 
mation might help some in the North and some in Europe, 
“though not so much, I fear, as you and those you represent 
imagine.’’>2 

This severe lecture could not have been very comforting 
to the committee. The Chicago Times gave the following 
account of the mission: “The Reverend Dr, Patton and com- 
pany, who bore the memorial of the religious anti-slavery — 
fanatics of this city to the president in favor of a decree of 
immediate and universal negro emancipation, seem not to 
have gleaned any very essential satisfaction in their inter- 
view. ‘The President received the committee kindly, and 
informed them that the subject was one near his heart, but 
that he could not agree with the gentlemen that the time 
had come for such a measure’. And so the Reverend Dr. 
Patton and company came away. ‘Great cry and little wool,’ 
as somebody said when he sheared the hog.’ 

President Lincoln’s idea that the Emancipation Proclama- 
tion was a war measure received scant consideration from 
northern Methodists.°* The Western Christian Advocate 
printed the proclamation with very favorable comment.5® 
The editor of Beauty of Holiness commended Lincoln but 
urged that he should have freed all the slaves instead of 
excepting those in loyal states.°° The Christian Advocate 
and Journal contained an article favorable to the President’s 
action,®? while Zion’s Herald showed its approval by an 
article two and one-half columns in length.°® Eddy was 
among the most enthusiastic supporters of the proclamation. 
In part he said: “The proclamation is not all we wish or 
look for, yet it is much, and perhaps may be enough at 
present.”59 But he declared that it had sounded the death 


Answered Prayer 331 


knell of slavery, “and pealed the herald note of our coming 
victory and triumph.’®° The chaplain whose statement in 
regard to Lincoln on a previous occasion had been termed 
“hyfalutin,’®! must have taken considerable satisfaction in 
Eddy’s appraisal that “if this be followed up, as we believe 
it will, as age succeeds age, brightest among the names of 
our statesmen and deliverers, will shine that of ABRAHAM 
LINCOLN! THE GREAT EMANCIPATOR!?’6 

The resolutions of Illinois and Genesee conferences con- 
cerning the Proclamation are typical of all those passed by 
northern conferences. The former endorsed it “as justified, 
not only by military necessity, but by the moral sense of the 
civilized world.”®% Genesee conference, by a unanimous 
vote, heartily approved the Proclamation “as being a neces- 
sary war measure and directly calculated to bring about a 
sure and lasting peace, by removing the great cause of our 
past national disturbances and of the present Civil War.”’® 

Together with the emancipation of slaves, northern Meth- 
odists insisted that the National Government should employ 
negroes as soldiers. Eddy urged the policy within four 
months after the war started. He said Tennessee had 
ordered the conscription of all negroes between the ages of 
eighteen and fifty-five years, and his conclusion was that 
the North ought to arm them. He admitted that those 
favorable to the South would raise the cry of “servile war,” 
but he considered such an. attitude without justification since 
the South had set the example. He asserted that there were 
four million slaves held in the South and many negroes in 
Canada who desired to go south “under the folds of the 
star-spangled banner and to the sound of martial music.” 
The question was whether or not these should be used. The 
South was compelling negroes to work for them. The North 
must therefore “offset that by proclamations of freedom and 
by the employment of African muscle, endurance and 
pluck.”® | 

But over sixteen months passed before President Lincoln 
announced his intention of using negroes in the Federal 
army.®? So satisfactory was the service which these recruits 
rendered that Erie conference passed the following resolution 
in 1866: “That the negro soldier in many a well-fought 


B32 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


battle has vindicated his manhood against the slanders of 
those who have sought to degrade his character, as an excuse 
for reducing him to the condition of a brute. We trust that 
the day has dawned on his long night of bondage.’”® 
During 1864 and 1865 Congress passed®® and three-fourths 
of the states ratified an amendment by which all slavery in 
the nation was forbidden.*° From the time that an amend- 
ment to the Constitution seemed possible, northern Methodist 
leaders gave their whole-hearted support to the proposed 
measure, Maine conference, April 13, 1864, approved “of 
the efforts being made so to change the Constitution of the 
United States as to exclude slavery forever from all our 
borders.”"1 In 1865, New Jersey conference approved the 
amendment and condemned the New Jersey legislature for 
refusing to sanction the measure.”* The Methodist, an ad- 
mittedly conservative paper, petitioned the Government for 
the universal emancipation of the slaves.‘* Other confer- 
ences and leaders added their approval to this radical depar- 
ture from the position held by a majority of the people in 
1861.%4 

The destruction of slavery in the Nation had as a corallary 
the extirpation of slavery from the Methodist Church. That 
the war was distinctly the work of Providence was the 
opinion of many Methodist leaders. The course of the war 
was considered as conclusive proof that God had somehow 
led and guided the North and confounded the South. By 
others the result was regarded “as an answer to the prayers 
of the church, which have been specially and increasingly 
earnest during the last forty years.”"® After Lincoln issued 
his Emancipation Proclamation, Ohio conference said: “Re- 
solved, That we adore the Lord for at last virtually answer- 
ing for us a question long and anxiously asked by the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church, ‘What shall be done for the. extir- 
pation of the evil of slavery among us? ”?7 And New 
Hampshire conference declared that God was “sublimely 
answering” the same question which had been “so long 
dubiously asked.” 78 

It is a curious fact that many ministers of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church continued to cling to the opinion that the 
Church had always been opposed to slavery. Wyoming 


Answered Prayer 333 


conference congratulated themselves and the Church that 
they had “been permitted for nearly a whole century in this 
country to witness against the great evil which has caused 
the present rebellion. With more or less steadiness of pur- 
pose and earnestness of effort we have sought its extirpation 
from the country.”’? Southern Illinois conference said that 
the Church had “ever held that slavery is a heinous sin 
against God and nature.’’®° But Oneida conference was more 
truthful, declaring in 1861 that, “however humiliating it may 
be, candor compels the acknowledgement, that in the adminis- 
tration of the Discipline we have not been true to our princi- 
ples. We have denounced the sin, but fellowshipped the 
sinner.”’®! It must be apparent that the Methodist Episcopal 
Church had not always “denounced the sin,” but on the 
contrary had constantly protected slaveholding by members 
of the Church. 


Although most northern conferences were opposed to 
slavery, there was no concerted action in favor of changing 
the General Rule on Slavery. Black River conference 
wanted non-slaveholding made a requisite for membership 
in the Church. Slaveholders then in the Church—and it was 
admitted that there were such—were to be permitted to with- 
draw from the same, but if they refused they were to be 
dealt with as in cases of immorality.82 New Hampshire 
conference delegates were instructed to see that the General 
Conference so changed the rule on slavery “that no prying 
eye of criticism or sympathy for ‘the peculiar institution’ ”’ 
should find an excuse for slavery to remain in the member- 
ship of the Church or mistake their “entire and earnest con- 
demnation of the great evil.”®% East Genesee conference, 
which had been very conservative during the war, was the 
only body that adopted a resolution embodying a specific and 
drastic change. They proposed that the rule on slavery 
should be revised so that it would forbid ‘“Slaveholding: 
buying or selling slaves.’’®4 

But since this proposal was not accepted by two-thirds of 
all the ministers of the Church, the question of changing the 
rule must be left to the General Conference of 1864 which 
met May 2, at Philadelphia. In all the General Conferences 
prior to 1864 the bishops had refused to recommend that 


334 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


slavery be excluded from the Church. But in their address 
at the beginning of this Conference, they proposed that no 
more slaveholders should be permitted to join the Methodist 
Episcopal Church. Elliott declared that the concurrence of 
annual conferences was not necessary to make a change of 
the rule valid, because “the decision of the General Confer- 
ence of 1784, requiring freedom in all cases, but which the 
civil power had suspended for eighty years, could now be 
carried out to the letter by the General Conference’ without 
that approval.®> The majority recommendation, forbidding 
“Slaveholding : buying.or selling slaves,” was adopted, 207 to 
9.86 It was considered advisable to secure the concurrence 
of annual conferences.®? 

The reason for the action of the General Conference of 
1864 needs some explanation. It was certain that it was 
only a matter of months until slavery would be abolished by 
constitutional amendment, and the General Conference legis- 
lation was therefore unnecessary. Ridgeway says that the 
Conference passed the measure because “the General Gov- 
ernment needed all the moral force the Conference could give 
it in grappling with the Rebellion, whose inspiration was 
slavery.”8’ But this could have been and was done by reso- 
lutions in support of the President and his war program. 

Prickings of conscience because in previous years the 
Church had refused to exclude all slaveholders from the 
Church, and the assurance that their action would be popular 
throughout the Church and Nation are the more probable 
explanations. Bishop Haven, writing of this event, says 
that “when the war was over and not a slave remained in 
the country, the barren exploit of inserting the word ‘slave- 
holding’ in the Rules was performed. Had I been a member 
of that General Conference I should have opposed it. The 
word is as much out of place as ‘cannibalism’ or ‘the offering 
of human sacrifices’ would be. I wrote an article to that 
effect, but the tide was too strong for sober thought. For 
one, I regret that the Discipline is changed from that under 
which the Methodist Episcopal Church took its noble posi- 
tion, and fought so hard to maintain. If any change had 
been made it should have been, and might well be now, to 
strike out all allusion to slavery whatever. The battle is 


Answered Prayer 33d 


fought and the victory won. Why maintain a useless breast- 
work and the ashes of burnt powder?’’’ But his protest 
was without avail, for “Slaveholding: the buying and selling 
of slaves” is still prohibited by the Methodist Episcopal 
Church.®*? | 


To the mind of Methodism, the Civil War was God’s 
answer to prayer. None of the proclamations of the Presi- 
dent or acts of Congress had given Methodist leaders suffi- 
cient courage to abolish slavery in the Church, but the pro- 
posed Thirteenth Amendment affected all the people, North 
and South, loyal and disloyal. No appeal could be made by 
the southern Church to slaveholders; northern Methodists 
could not lose members by their proposed act. It was in 
this spirit that the General Conference enacted, and annual 
conferences approved what was already certain to be attained 
by the National Government. The Thirteenth Amendment 
was declared in affect on December 18, 1865.99 The req- 
uisite number of northern conferences had ratified the 
General Conference action by the Spring of the same year 
so that it became the law of the Church, but appeals could 
be taken to the ensuing annual conferences if slaveholding 
members desired, For all practical purposes, therefore, both 
branches of Methodism became free from slavery at the same 
time. 


1. Minutes of the New Hampshire Conference, 1863, pp. 22-4; Minutes 
of the Genesee Conference, 1862, pp. 12-13; Minutes of the Rock 
River Conference, 1861, p. 15; Ibid., 1862, pp. 28-9. 

2. Fradenburgh, History of the Erie Conference, Volume II., p. 527; 
Minutes of the Black River Conference, 1862, pp. 30-31,34; Minutes 
of the Michigan Conference, 1861, pp. 33-6; Minutes of the Wyom- 
ing Conference, 1862, p. 33; Minutes of the Genesee Conference, 
1862, pp. 12-13; Minutes of the New England Conference, 1864, p. 
24; Minutes of the Detroit Conference, 1861, p. 36; Ibid., 1864, pp. 
10-12: Minutes of the Maine Conference, 18638, pp. 21-22; Minutes of 
the Rock River Conference, 1861, pp. 14-16; Ibid., 1862, pp. 28-9; 
Ibid., 1864, pp. 26-7; Minutes of the Providence Conference, 1862, 
pp. 21-2. Cf. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., p. 
324, col. 6; October 9, 1861; and Ibid. p. 347, col. 3; October 
30, 1861 and Ibid., Volume X., p. 358, cols. 5-6; November 5, 1862, 
The Detroit conference of 1861 said: ‘‘That as slavery is the real 
cause, and liberty or slavery the real issue, of the contest, we are 
in favor of the humane, but vigorous, prosecution of the war until 
the irrepressible conflict between the two is finally settled in the 
utter overthrow of rebellion, in the utter destruction of treason 
with its twin monster secession, and in God’s own good time, in 
the utter abolition of American slavery.’’ The Minnesota con- 
ference committee declared that they were convinced ‘‘that slavery 
is the cause of all this war,’’ 


336 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


Weston, Progress of Slavery in the United States, p. 175. 
Hosmer, The Appeal to Arms, pp. 52-3. 

F aeptiee ue Christian Advocate, Volume IX., p. 4, col. 2; January 
2, 1861 

Ibid., p. 188, cols. 2-3; June 12, 1861. 


'Ibid., p. 249, col. 2; August 7, 1861. 


Ibid., p. 196, cols. 2-3; June 19, 1861. These papers were the World, 
the Independent and Atlantic Magazine. 
Ibid., p. 252, col. 3; August 7, 1861. 


. Ibid., p, 268, col. 5; August 21, 1861. 
. Nicolay and Hay (editors), Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, 


Volume II., pp. 78-81. Cf. Hosmer, The Appeal to Arms, p. 79. 


. The Methodist, Volume II., p. 276; September 7, 1861. 
. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., p. 324, col. 6; 


October 9, 1861. 


. Ibid., p. 347, col. 3; October 30, 1861. 

. Ibid., p. 292, cols, 1-2; September 11, 1861. 

. Minutes of the Rock River Conference, 1861, p. 15. 

. Hosmer, The Appeal to Arms, pp. 205-7. Cf. Nicolay and Hay 


(editors), Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, Volume II., pp. 
129-130; and The Methodist, Volume III., p. 188, cols, 3-4; June 21, 
1862. 


. Minutes of the Southern Illinois Conference, 1862, pp. 34-5. 
. Minutes of the New York East Conference, 1862, pp. 21-2. 
. Minutes of the New England Northern Conference, 1862, pp. 21-2. 
. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume X., p. 84, col. 1; March 


12, 1862. 


. Ibid., p. 100, col. 5; March 26, 1862. 
. For an account of Lincoln’s favorable attitude, see Nicolay and 


Hay (editors), Abraham Lincoln—A History, Volume V., pp. 215-17. 


. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume X., p. 140, col. 1; April 


30, 1862. 


. Minutes of the Rock River Conference, 1862, p. 28. 
. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume X., p. 1382, cols. 1-2; 


April 23, 1862. 


. Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXIX., p. 148, cols. 1-2; May 


7, 1862. 


. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., p. 372, col. 5; 


November 20, 1861. 


. Ibid., Volume X., p. 148, cols. 4-5; May 7, 1862. 
. Ibid., Volume IX., p. 824, col. 6; October 9, 1861. Cf. Ibid., Volume 


xX., p. 84, col. 1; March 12, 1862; and Fradenburgh, History of Erie 
Conference, Volume II., p. 528. 


. Minutes of the Rock River Conference, 1861, p. 15. 
. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume X., Dy 84, col 3s March 


12, 1862. The article was entitled “Confiscation.” 


. Ibid., col. 1. Probably one of the papers referred to was the 


Chicago Times, a Democratic paper. 


. Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXVIII, p. 330, cols. 4-5; 


October 16, 1861. 


. [bids {Volume 2EXLX.,pi 225, cols.1-3; culy 16, 4862 
. Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume XXXVIL., p. 65, col. 6; 


February 27, 1862. 


. Ibid., p. 268, cols. 2-3; April 21, 1862. 
. Hosmer, The Appeal to Arms, p. 208. 
. Bancroft, Speeches ete. of Carl Schurz, Volume I., p. 209. The 


letter was from Sumner to Schurz, July 5, 1862. 


. Welles, Diary, Volume I., pp. 70-71. The announcement was made 


on the way to the funeral of Secretary Stanton’s child. The mem- 
bers of the party were amazed at his changed sentiments. 


. Nicolay and Hay (editors), Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, 


Volume II., pp. 479-80. Cf. Crooks, Life of Bishop Simpson, p. 
374. 


48. 


Answered Prayer 337 


. Welles, Diary, Volume I., pp. 142-4, 
- Minutes of Upper Iowa Conference, 1862, p. 42, Passed September 


10. 


. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume X., p. 358, cols. 5-6; 


November 5, 1862. The resolution was passed before September 22. 


. ibid., col. 5; November 5, 1862. Resolutions were passed 


September 8. 


. Ibid., p. 288, col. 2; September 10, 1862 and Ibid., p. 300, cols. 3-4; 


September 17, 1862. 


. New York Tribune, August 20, p. 4, cols. 2-4. This was an open 


letter to the President. He maintained that the people who elected 
him were sorely disappointed. The following charges and sugges- 
tions or demands were set forth: (1) Lincoln was not executing 
the laws, especially the more important ones. (2) He was remiss 
in regard to emancipating slaves according to the provisions of 
the Confiscation Act, (3) He was unduly influenced by the repre- 
sentatives and menaces of the ‘‘fossil politicians’’ of the border 
states. (4) The Government was too timid in dealing with rebels. 
(5) The Union cause was suffering from the deference being shown 
to rebel slavery. If the President had served notice in his inaugu- 
ral address that no loyal person could be held in slavery if a 
rebellion were begun, slavery would have been struck a stagger- 
ing, if not a fatal blow. (6) The Confiscation Act was habitually 
disregarded by generals in the field. (7) Negroes were killed at 
New Orleans by northern troops when they came expecting free- 
dom. (8) He declared that it was impossible to put down the 
rebellion and save slavery. (9) Finally, Greeley called upon the 
President to execute the laws, and especially the Confiscation Act. 
Lincoln’s reply to this attack was that his chief purpose was to 
save the Union and that whatever he did had that object in view. 
The question of slavery was subordinate to the larger purpose. 
If he could save the Union and free the slaves, he would do that; 
if he could save the Union by not freeing the slaves, he would do 
that; and if he could best serve the interests of the nation by 
freeing some slaves and not others, he would proceed to do so. 
He also promised that when he made mistakes and they were 
pointed out to him, he would endeavor to correct them (The 
source is the same as footnote 49, below). 


. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume X., p. 276, cols. 4-5; 


August 27, 1862. 


. Welles, Diary, Volume I., p. 130; September 13, 1862. 
. Chicago Times, September 5, 1862, p. 2, col. 1. Cf. Northwestern 


Christian Advocate, Volume X., p. 292, cols. 1-3; September 10, 1862, 


. Nicolay and Hay (editors), Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, 


Volume II., pp. 234-6. 


. Chicago Times, September 18, 1862. 
. An exception is noted in Armstrong, The Old Baltimore Confer- 


ence, p. 275. 


. Western Christian Advocate, Volume XXIX., p. 314, cols. 5-6; 


October 1, 1862. 


. Beauty of Holiness, Volume 13, No. 10, p. 326. 
. Christian Advocate and Journal, Volume XXXVII., p. 324, col. 1; 


October 9, 1862. 


_ Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Volume XXXIII., 158, cols. 


2-4; October 1, 1862. 


. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume X., 316, cols. 1-2; 


October 1, 1862. 


. Ibid., p. 324, col. 5; October 8, 1862. 
. Supra, p. 324. 1 
_ Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume X., p. 316, cols. 1-2; 


October 1, 1862. 


. Minutes of the Illinois Conference, 1863, p. 26. Cf. Western 


Christian Advocate, Volume XXIX., p. 355, col. 1; November 5, 1862. 


. Conable, History of the Genesee Conference, Pp. 672, 


338 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


65. 


66. 


67. 
68. 


69. 


Minutes of the Genesee Conference, 1862, p. 138. For other con- 
ferences, see Minutes of the Ohio Conference, 1863, p. 16; Minutes 
of the Maine Conference, 1863, pp. 21-2; Minutes of the Rock River 
Conference, 1862, pp. 28-9; Minutes of the New Hampshire Confer- 
ence, 1863, pp. 22-4; Minutes of the New York Conference, 1863, 
p. 82; Minutes of the New York East Conference, 1863, p. 32; 
Fradenburgh, History of Erie Conference, Volume II., pp. 530-31 
(Meadville District), The Minutes of Michigan conference relative 
to slavery and emancipation are to be found in the Northwestern 
Christian Advocate, Volume X., p. 339, cols. 3-4; October 22, 1862 
and the Wisconsin conference resolutions in Ibid., p. 355, col. 5; 
November 5, 1862. 

In all these resolutions the idea of ‘‘military necessity’ was 
minimized, while the moral results of the proclamation as well as 
the moral necessity of such a document were emphasized. 
Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., p. 260, cols. 2-3; 
August 14, 1861. 

In the final Proclamation of Emancipation, January 1, 1863. 
Fradenburgh, History of Erie Conference, Volume II., p. 534. This 
sentiment was probably shared by most northern Methodists. Cf. 
Minutes of the Genesee Conference, 1865, p. 35; and Minutes of 
the Rock River Conference, 1863, p. 26. 

The project failed twice in the House of Representatives but after 
the election of 1864, when the amendment was advocated by the 
Union party, the necessary two-thirds vote was secured, January 
31, 1865. By December 18, 1865, three fourths of the states had 
ratified the amendment to the Constitution. 


. Hosmer, The Outcome of the Civil War, pp. 124-7, 148, 150-52, 


221-2. 


. Minutes of the Maine Conference, 1864, p. 24. 


finutes of the New Jersey Conference, 1865, p. 24. 


. The Methodist, Volume YV., p. 108, cols. 4- 5: April 9, 1864. 
. Minutes of the Illinois Conference, 1866, p. 24; Minutes of the 


Rock River Conference, 1865, pp. 28-9; Minutes of the New England 
Conference, 1864, p. 24; Zion’s Herald and Wesleyan Journal, Vol- 
ume XXXVI., p. 90, col. 3; June 7, 1865. 


. Minutes of the New York Hast Conference, 1864, p. 40; Minutes of 


the Rock River Conference, 1865, pp. 28-9. 


. Minutes of the Minnesota Conference, 1865, p. 36. 
. Minutes of the Ohio Conference, 1863, p. 16. 
. Minutes of the New Hampshire Conference, 1865, p. 21. The 


resolution is as follows: “God is sublimely answering the question 
which was so long dubiously asked,—‘What shall be done for the 
extirpation of slavery?’ The slaveowners, grown insolent and bold 
by the concessions and compromises of the Church, he has al- 
lowed to plunge into a mad rebellion, which has involved them 
and their peculiar institution in an overthrow, entire and conspic- 
uous as the fall of Pharaoh and his host. President Lincoln’s 
emancipation proclamation was one stamp of almighty justice on 
the neck of oppression; the constitutional amendment of congress 
is another; and the fierce blows of our gallant army on rebellion 
have hewn its carcass to pieces. Now, let it be drawn forth with- 
out funeral, to rot in the last ditch, with the wreck of the Con- 
federacy.”’ 


. Minutes of the Wyoming Conference, 1862, p. 33. 

. Minutes of the Southern Iinois Conference, 1863, pp. 36-7. 

. Minutes of the Oneida Conference, 1861, p. 29. 

. Northwestern Christian Advocate, Volume IX., p. 155, col. 3; May 


15, 1861. 


. Minutes of the New Hampshire Conference, 1864, p. 21. 

. Minutes of the Mast Genesee Conference, 1864, p. 7. 

. Elliott, South-Western Methodism, p. 411. 

. Journal of General Conference, 1864, p. 167. A conservative minori- 


ty report was also presented (Ibid., p. 377). 


. Ridgeway, Life of Bishop Janes, p. 275. 


88. 


89. 
90. 


Answered Prayer 339 


Haven, Autobiography (Stratton, editor), p. 126. The same 
thought was expressed in the General Conference of 1864 by John 
B. Wentworth of Genesee conference. He suggested that, owing 
to the proposed constitutional amendment, the General Rule ‘‘must 
soon become obsolete, and could have no practical effect, but only 
serve as a memorial of the former complicity of Church and State 
with this stupendous wrong, by which the civilization and Christ- 
ianity of the nineteenth century in our country have become 
lastingly disgraced, without the use of extraordinary means for 
perpetuating their shame: therefore 

“Resolved 1. That the Committee on Slavery be instructed care- 
fully to consider the wisdom and propriety of recommending in 
their forthcoming report, not any amendment of our present Rule 
on Slavery, but an elimination of that Rule, by the action of this 
Conference and the concurrent action of a constitutional majority 
in the Annual Conferences.’’ (Journal of General Conference, 1864, 
pp. 105-6). 
Hoctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1924, 
Paragraph 30. 
Rhodes, History of the United States, Volume V., p. 540. 


Pash tac en Se ae ey 
ne fi aa ; si De Pe ict ‘ an very. ; 
iy . x ! mh ef he. LA . ? q : i ; hay G ¥} 
gj ie) va it ae he 
: til Dial a 7 
pa WR es, 5) 


re iM 
yen Wa 
ca vt 


wel hs 





BIBLIOGRAPHY 


A. PRIMARY SOURCES 


I. CONFERENCE REcorps. 


1. Histories of Annual Conferences. 
1. Allen, Rev. Stephen, D. D., and Pilsbury, Rev. W. H., History 
of Methodism in Maine, 1793-1886. Augusta: Press of Charles E. 
Nash — 1887. 
2. Armstrong, James Edward, History of the Old Baltimore Con- 
ference (From the Planting of Methodism in 1773 to the Division 
of the Conference in 1857). Baltimore: Printed for the author by 
King Bros., Printers — 1907. 
3. Bennett, Rev. P. S., and Lawson, Rev. James, History of 
Methodism in Wisconsin. Cincinnati: Cranston & Stowe — 1890. 
4, Bennett, Rev. William W., Memorials of Methodism in Vir- 
ginia, from its introduction into the state, in the year 1772, to the 
year 1829. Richmond: Published by the Author — 1871. 
5. Conable, Rev. F. W., History of the Genesee Annual Con- 
ference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, from its Organization 
by Bishops Asbury and M’Kendree, in 1810 to the Year 1884 (Sec- 
ond edition). New York: Phillips & Hunt — 1885. 
6. Crawford, Rev. Geo. A. (editor), The Centennial of New 
England Methodism. Boston: Crawford Brothers, 36 Bromfield 
Street — 1891. 
7. Fradenburgh, J. N., History of Erie Conference (two volumes). 
Oil City, Pa.: Published for the Author by Derrick Publishing 
Company —: 1907. 
8. Graham, Rev. Henry, History of the Troy Conference. Albany, 
N. Y.: J. B. Lyon Company — 1908. 
9. Gregg, Samuel, History of Methodism within the bounds of 
the Erie Annual Conference (two volumes). New York: Nelson 
& Phillips, 805 Broadway — 1873. 
10. Herrick, H. N., and Sweet, W. W., A History of the North 
Indiana Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Indianap- 
olis: W. K. Stewart Company — 1917. 
11. M’Ferrin, John B., History of Methodism in Tennessee (three 
volumes). Nashville: Published by A. H. Redford, Agent, for the 
M. E. Church, South — 1871 to 1891. 
12. Mudge, James, History of the New England Conference, 1796- 
~ 1910. Boston: Published by the Conference, 36 Bromfield Street— 
1910. 
13. Price, R. N., Holston Methodism: from its origin to the 
present time (third thousand). Nashville: Publishing House of 
the M. E. Church, South — 1904 to 1908. 
14. Redford, A. H., Western Cavaliers: embracing the History 
of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Kentucky from 1832 to 1844 


341 


342 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


(fifth thousand). Nashville: Southern Methodist Publishing House 
—1876 


15 Shipp, Rev. Albert M., The History of Methodism in South 
Carolina. Nashville: Southern Methodist Publishing Company— 
1884. 

16. Smith, George G., Jr., The History of Methodism in Georgia 


and Florida, from 1785 to 1865. 


Macon, Ga.: Jno. W. Burke & 


Coes tery: 


17. West, Rev. Anson, A History of Methodism in Alabama. 


Pub- 


lishing House, Methodist Episcopal Church, South — 1893. 


1 


Church for the year 1862 (Volume IX). 


Minutes 


Porter. 
2. Minutes and Annals of the Baltimore Annual Conference (now 


2. Minutes of Annual Conferences. 
of the Annual Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal 
New York: Carlton & 


of the M. E. Church, South), 1862-66, in Baltimore and Maryland. 
3. Minutes of the Baltimore Conference, 1863. 

4. Minutes of the Black River Conference, 1862. 

5. Minutes of the Delaware (Ohio) Conference, 1857, 1859. 

6. Minutes of the Detroit Conference, 1856, 1861, 1864. 

7. Minutes of the East Baltimore Conference, 1859, 1860. 

8. Minutes of the East Genesee Conference, 1861-64. 

9. Minutes of the East Maine Conference, 1852, 1858, 1860. 

10. Minutes of the Erie Conference, 1850-51. 

11. Minutes of the Genesee Conference, 1856, 1862, 1864-65. 

12. Minutes of the Illinois Conference, 1859, 1863, 1866. 

13. Minutes of the Maine Conference, 1843-46, 1850-52, 1854-57, 


1860, 1863-64. 
14. Minutes of the 
15. Minutes of the 
16. Minutes of the 


Michigan Conference, 1855-56, 1861. 
Minnesota Conference, 1865. 
New England Conference, 1845-48, 1852-54, 1856- 


58, 1860-62. 1864. 


17. Minutes of the 
18. Minutes of the 


New England Conference, 1862. 


New Hampshire Conference, 1845-48 18653, 


1861, 1863-65. 


. Minutes 
. Minutes 
. Minutes 
. Minutes 
. Minutes 
. Minutes 


25. Minutes 


. Minutes 
. Minutes 
. Minutes 
. Minutes 
. Minutes 
. Minutes 
. Minutes 
. Minutes 
. Minutes 
. Minutes 


of the New Jersey Conference, 1865. 

of the New York Conference, 1858, 1860, 1862-63. 

of the New York East Conference, 1862-64. 

of the North Indiana Conference, 1850-51, 1853. 

of the North Ohio Conference, 1853-54. 

of the Ohio Conference, 1863. 

of the Oneida Conference, 1861. 

of the Philadelphia Conference, 1862-64. 

of the Pittsburg Conference, 1857. 

of the Providence Conference, 1854-55, 1861-62. 

of the Rock River Conference, 1854-57, 1861-65. 

of the Southern Illinois Conference, 1855-59, 1862-63. 
of the Troy Conference, 1840, 1845-50, 1854, 1860, 1862. 
of the Upper Iowa Conference, 1857, 1860, 1862, 1864. 
of the Vermont Conference, 1848, 1850-53, 1855-57, 1861. 
of the West Wisconsin Conference, 1862. 

of the Wisconsin Conference, 1850-51. 


Bibliography 343 


36. Minutes of the Wyoming Conference, 1862. 
3. General Conference Records. 

1. Journals of the General Conference of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church, 1796-1836, Volume I. 
2. Journals of the General Conference of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church (Volume II., 1840, 1844, together with the Debates of 
1844) New York: Carlton & Lanahan; San Francisco: E. Thomas; 
Cincinnati: Hitchcock & Walden. 
3. Journals of the General Conference of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church, Volume III., 1848-1856. New York: Carlton & Porter, 
200 Mulberry Street - 1856. 
4. Journals of the General Conference of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church, 1860. New York: Carlton & Porter - 1860. 
5. Journals of the General Conference of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church, 1864. New York: Carlton & Porter - 1864. 
6. Journals of the General Conference of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church, South, 1846 and 1850. 

Journals of the General Conference of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church, South, 1854. 
8. Journals of the General Conference of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church, South, 1858. 


Il. CoNTROVERSIAL WorkKS. 


1. Bartlett, David W., Modern Agitators: or Pen Portraits of 
ice American Reformers. New York: Miller, Orton & Mulligan 
— 1856. 

2. Bascom, H. B.; Greene, A. L. P; Parsons, C. B. (Southern Com- 
missioners for the settlement of the Property Question between 
the two churches) Brief Appeal to Public Opinion in a Series of 
exceptions to the Course and Action of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, from 1844 to 1848, affecting the Rights and Interests of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. Louisville, Ky. : Published 
by John Early, Agent for the Methodist E. Church, South; Morton 
& Grimswold, Printers, — 1848. ° 

3. Dixon, James, Methodism in America. London: Printed for 
the author; sold by John Mason, 66 Paternoster-Row, and by James 
Peart, Birmingham — 1849. 

4. Elliott, Charles, History of the Great Secession from the Meth- 
odist Episcopal Church in the year 1845, eventuating in the organ- 
ization of the New Church, entitled the “Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South.” Cincinnati: Swormstedt & Poe — 1855. 

5. Elliott, Charles, South-Western Methodism — A History of 
the M. E. Church in the South-West, from 1844 to 1864 (revised 
by Rev. Leroy M. Vernon) Cincinnati: Poe & Hitchcock — 1868. 
6. Fuller, Erasmus Q., An Appeal to the Record: A Vindication of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church in its policy and proceedings to- 
wards the South. Cincinnati: Hitchcock & Walden; New York: 
Nelson & Philips — 1876. 

7. Jay, William, Miscellaneous Writings on Slavery. Boston: 
John P. Jewett, & Company; Cleveland, Ohio: Jewett, Proctor, and 
Worthington; London: Simpson Low, Son and Co. — 1853. 


344 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


8 Lee, Rev. Luther, and Smith, Rev. E, The Debates of the Gene- 
ral, Conference of the M. E. Church, May, 1844. New York: Pub- 
lished by O. Scott, for the Wesleyan Methodist Connection of Amer- 
ica; L. J. McIndoe, Printer — 1845. 

9. Leftwich, Rev. W. M., Martyrdom in Missouri: A History of 
Religious Proscription. Two volumes. _ St. Louis: S. W. Book 
and Pub. Co. — 1870. 

10. Long, John Dixon, Pictures of Slavery in Church and State. 
Philadelphia: Published by the author — 1857. 

11. Matlack, Lucius C., The History of American Slavery and 
Methodism from 1780 to 1849; and the History of the Wesleyan 
Methodist Connection of America. New York — 1849. 

12. Myers, Edward H., The Disruption of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, 1844-1846: Comprising a Thirty Years’ History of the 
Relations of the two Methodisms. Nashville: A. H. Redford, A- 
gent; Macon, Ga.: J. W. Burke & Co. — 1875. 

13. Old South Leaflets, Volume IV., No. 80. Boston: Directors 
of the Old South Work, Old South Meeting House. Boston. 

14. Peck, George, Slavery and the Episcopacy: being an examination 
of Dr. Bascom’s Review of the Reply of the Majority of the late 
General Conference of the M. E. Church, in the Case of Bishop 
Andrew. New York. G. Lane & C. B. Tippett — 1845. 

15. Prindle, C., The Methodist Episcopal Church, Constitutionally 
and Disciplinarily always Anti-Slavery. Cleveland: Mount & Co. — 
1882. 

16. Pullen, William H., The Blast of a Trumpet in Zion. Webb 
Millington & Co. — 1860. 

17. Scott, O. The Grounds of Secession from the M. E. Church, 
or Book for the Times. New York: C. Prindle — 1848. 

18. Smith, William A., Lectures on the philosophy and Practice 
of Slavery (Edited by Thomas O. Summers). Nashville: Steven- 
son and Evans — 1856. 

19. Sunderland, Rev. La Roy, Anti-Slavery Manual (Third Edition). 
New York: Printed by S. W. Benedict — 1839. 

20. Sutton, R. (Special and Congressional Reporter), The Methodist 
Church Property Case (Report of the Suit of Henry B. Bascom 
and others vs. George Lane and others) — heard before the Hon 
Judges Nelson and Betts, in the Circuit Court, United States, for 
the Southern District of New York, May 17- 29, 1851. New York: 
Lane & Scott — 1851. 


III. Duiscrprines oF THE METHODIST CHURCHES. 


1. Discipline of the Wesleyan Methodist Connection of America, 
The. New York: Published by O. Scott, for the Wesleyan Methodist 
Connection — 1845. 

2. Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
1924, The. New York and Cincinnati: The Methodist Book Con- 
cern. 

3. Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, The. Charleston: Published by John Early, for the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church, South — 1846. 


Bibliography 345 


4. Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, The. Nashville: Stevenson & Owen — 1854. 

5. Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South, The. Nashville: Southern Methodist Publishing House—1859. 
6. Emory, Robert, History of the Discipline of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church (Revised and brought down to 1856, by W. P. 
’ Strickland). New York: Carlton & Porter — 1843. 


IV. MISCELLANEOUS WRITINGS. 


1. Andrews, E. A., Slavery and the Domestic Slave-Trade in the 
United States. Boston: Light and Stearns — 1836. 
2. Fleming, Walter L., Documentary History of Reconstruction— 
Political, Military, Social, Religious, Educational & Industrial, 1865 
to the Present Time (two volumes). Cleveland: The Arthur H. 
Clark Company — 1907. 
3 .Gorrie, Rev. P. Douglas, Episcopal Methodism, As it Was, and 
Is. Auburn: Derby and Miller — 1852. 
4. Handbook of the Baltimore Conference, Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South. Baltimore: King Brothers — 1871. 
5: Helper, Hinton Rowan, The Impending Crisis of the South: How 
to meet it. New York: A. B. Burdick — 1860. 
6. History of the Organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, 
South: comprehending all the Official Proceedings of the General 
Conference: the Southern Annual Conferences, and the General Con- 
vention; with such other matters as are necessary to a right under- 
standing of the case. Nashville: compiled and published by the 
editors and publishers of the South-Western. Christian Advocate, 
-for the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, by order of the Louis- 
ville Convention — 1845. 

McTyeire, Holland N., A History of Methodism. Publishing 
House — 1885. 
8. Nicolay, John G., and Hay, John, Abraham Lincoln—A History. 
Ten Volumes. New York: The Century Co. — 1890. 
9. Olmstead, Frederick Law, Journeys and Explorations in the 
Cotton Kingdom (two volumes). London: Sampson Low, Son 
& Co. — 1861. 
10. Weston, George Melville, Progress: of Slavery in the United 
States. Published by the author. Washington, D. C. — 1857. 


V. NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES. 


1. Methodist Papers. 


1. American Wesleyan Observer, 1844—Jotham Horton and Orange 
Scott, Publishers. (This paper was published for the purpose of 
furnishing the readers of the Wesleyan papers with the news of 
the General Conference of 1844 of the Methodist Episcopal Church.) 
2. Baltimore Christian Advocate (March 31, 1860 copy only) 
Thomas E. Bond, M. D., editor. 

3. Beauty of Holiness—edited by Rev. M. and Mrs. A. M. French, 
Columbus, Ohio (The paper was first published in 1848. Volume 
13 — 1860 — was used.) 


346 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


4. Christian Advocate and Journal, The, Volumes I-XI, XVI, 
XVIITI-XIX, XXXVII. (This paper was first published in Sep- 
tember, 1826 and was the first official paper of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church. In 1828 “Zion’s Herald” was absorbed by the 
Advocate, the combination being known as “The Christian Advocate 
and Journal & Zion’s Herald.” August 30, 1833, the former name 
was resumed). 

Christian Sentinel, The, Volume II. (The paper was first 
published in 1832 at Richmond, Virginia. Ethelbert Drake was 
the editor.) 

6. Methodist, The, Volumes II-V. (This publication first ap- 
peared in 1860, following the General Conference of that year, 
for the purpose of preventing border conferences from seceding 
from the Methodist Episcopal Church.) 

7. New England Christian Advocate, Volumes I and II, 1841-43. 
(Conducted under the superintendence of a committee of New Eng- 
land, Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont Conferences of the 
M. E. Church. Luther Lee was the editor). 

8. New England Christian Herald, Volume II. The first number 
was issued October 6, 1830. (Conducted by a Committee of New 
England, Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont Conferences of the 
M. E. Church. The paper was published at Boston. In 1833, 
this paper was united with Zion’s Herald—cf. The Liberator, 
Volume III., p. 155, col. 5; September 28, 1833). 

9. Northwestern Christian Advocate, The, Volumes I-IV, 1853-56; 
and Volumes VIII-X, 1859-62. (The paper was published in Chicago. 
James V. Watson was the first editor; T. M. Eddy served in that 
capacity during the Civil War.) 

10. Pittsburg Christian Advocate, The, Volumes XI-XIII, 1844-46 
and Volumes XVII and XVIII, 1850-51. 

11. Richmond Christian Advocate, The, Volumes XI-X VIII, 1843-50. 
12. Southern Christian Advocate, The, Volumes VI-X, 1842-47; and 
XIV, 1850-51. The paper was published at Charleston. 

13. Southwestern Christian Advocate, The (Published at Nashville, 
After 1844 it was the leading official paper of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, South. It was published under several different names. 
Until July 12, 1846 it was known as the “Southwestern Christian 
Advocate.” Then the name was changed to “Nashville Christian 
Advocate.” About 1850 the name was again altered, becoming 
“The Nashville and Louisville Christian Advocate,” and on July 1, 
1854 it became “The Christian Advocate.” The period covered by 
these volumes is from 1834 to 1861. The paper was suppressed 
during the Civil War.) 

14. True Wesleyan, The. J. Horton and O. Scott were the editors. 
The first number was issued January 7, 1843. Volumes I and II. 
were used. 

15. Virginia Conference Sentinel. (Published at Richmond, Vir- 
ginia—Leroy M. Lee, editor). This is a continuation of the “Christ- 
ian Sentinel.” The first number was issued in March, 1836. 

16. Western Christian Advocate, The. (Published at Cincinnati, 
Ohio. This was an official paper of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
The first copy was issued in 1834. The files of this paper are very 


Bibluography 347 


important for the present study. T. A. Morris, L. L. Hamline, and 
Matthew Simpson—all of whom became bishops of the Church— 
and Charles Elliott, who did as much as any other man to create 
bitterness between the two Methodist Churches, were the editors dur- 
ing the period from 1834 to 1862.) 

17. Zion’s Herald (This unofficial paper was first issued in 1823. 
In 1828 it was united with “The Christian Advocate and Journal.” 
Later, this connection was dissolved and “The Wesleyan Journal’ 
was united with Zion’s Herald.) 

18. Zion’s Watchman (Published at New York. The paper was 
issued by radical abolitionists in the Methodist Church. Only vol- 
ume IV—for the year 1839—has been usd). 


2. Methodist Magazines. 


ES pert Magazine, The, Volumes II, III, VII. (1819, 1820, 
2. Methodist Magazine and Quarterly Review, The, Volumes XII, 
XVII, XXII (1830, 1835, 1840.) 

3. Methodist Quarterly Review, Volumes XXXVII, XXXIX, LII, 
LITI. (1855, 1857, 1870, 1871). 

4. Missionary Herald, The, Volume XXXII (1836). This maga- 
zine was published at Boston. 

5. Quarterly Review, Volume I (1847). This publication was 
issued by the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. This volume 
contains the decision of the Court in the Maysville Case, as well 
as valuable records relative to the work of southern Methodists among 
the slaves. 


3. Secular Papers. 


1. Chicago Times, The (1862). 

2. Democratic Statesman (Published for nine months only, for 
the purpose of “redeeming” Tennessee from Whiggism to “her 
CRN democratic position.” A. O. P. Nicholson was editor in 
1845. 

3. Liberator, The. (William Lloyd Garrison was editor during 
the whole period from 1831 to 1865. Most of the volumes of this 
paper are a veritable mine of information and documents on the 
subject of the churches and slavery.) 

4. New York Tribune, The (1862). 

§. Richmond Enquirer, The, Volume LVII (1860). 


VI. Prrsonat REcorps. 


1. Autobtographies. 


1. Brunson, Rev. Alfred, A Western Pioneer (two volumes in 
one). Cincinnati: Walden & Stowe; New York: Phillips & Hunt 
—1880. 

2. Cartwright, Peter, Autobiography (edited by W. P. Strick- 
land) New York: Carlton & Porter — 1857. 

3. Finley, Rev. James B., Autobiography (edited by W. P. 
Strickland). Cincinnati: Methodist Book Concern — 1854. 


348 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


4. Haven, Erastus O., Autobiography (edited by Rev. C. C. 
Stratton). New York: Phillips & Hunt; Cincinnati: Walden 
& Stowe — 1883. 

5. Lee, Rev. Luther, Autobiography. New York: Phillips & 
Hunt; Cincinnati: Walden & Stowe — 1882. 

6. Parker, The Rev. D., Autobiography. (The original manu- 
script is in possession of the Rev. D. M. Parker of Fayette, lowa. 
It is a most interesting document written by a man who was 
one of the thousands who moved into Ohio in the early days fol- 
lowing the inauguration of the national government). 

7. Peck, Rev. George, Life and Times of (Written by Himself). 
New York: Nelson & Phillips; Cincinnati: Hitchcock & Walden 
— 1874. 

8. Young, Rev. Jacob, Autobiography of a Pioneer. Cincinnati: 
Poe & Hitchcock — 1860. 


2. Biographies. 


1. Bangs, Nathan, The Life of Rev. Freeborn Garrettson. 
New York: G. Lane & C. B. Tippett — 1845. 

2. Birney, William, James G. Birney and His Times (the gene- 
sis of the Republican party with some accounts of the abolition 
movements in the South before 1828). New York: D. Appleton 
and Company — 1890. 

3. Channing, William Henry, The Life of William Ellery Chan- 
ning (The Centenary Memorial Edition). Boston: American 
Unitarian Association — 1880. 

4. Clark, Rev. D. W., Life and Times of Rev. Elijah Hedding. 
New York: Carlton & Phillips — 1855. 

5. Crooks, George R., The Life of Bishop Matthew Simpson: 
New York: Harper & Brothers — 1891. 

6. Emory, Robert, The Life of Rev. John Emory. New York: 
George Lane — 1841. 

7. Henckle, Rev. M. M., The Life of Henry Bidleman Bascom. 
Nashville: E. Stevenson and F. A. Owen — 1856. 

8. Holdich, Joseph, The Life of Wilbur Fisk. New York: 
Harper & Brothers — 1856. 

9. Holland, Frederick May, Frederick Douglass: The Colored 
Orator (Revised edition). New York and London: Funk & 
Waegnalls Company. 

10. Lee, Leroy M., The Life and Times of Jesse Lee. Nashville: 
E. Stevenson and i E. Evans — 1856. 

11. Marlay, Rev. John F., The Life of Rev. Thomas A. Morris. 
okie Sow Hitchcock & Walden: New York: Nelson & Phillips— 
12. Matlack, Lucius C., The Life of Rev. Orange Scott. New 
York: C. Prindle and L. C. Matlack (Wesleyan Methodist Book 
Room) — 1847. 

13. Paine, Robert, Life and Times of William A endres (two 
volumes). Nashville: Publishing House of the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, south — 1874. 

14. Redford, A. H., Life and Times of H. H. Kavanaugh. Nash- 
ville: Southern Methodist Publishing House — 1885. 


Bibliography 349 


15. Ridgeway, Henry B., The Life of Edmund S. Janes. New 
York: Phillips & Hunt; Cincinnati: Walden & Stowe — 1882. 
16. Roche, John A., The Life of John Price Durbin (third edition). 
New York: Hunt & Eaton; Cincinnati: Cranston & Stowe—1890. 
17. Sanborn, F. B. (editor), The Life and Letters of John Brown. 
Boston: Roberts Brothers — 1891. 

18. Smith, Rev. George G., The Life and Letters of James Osgood 
Andrew. Nashville: Southern Methodist Publishing House—1883. 
19. Smith, George G., The Life and Times of George Foster 
Pierce. Sparta, Ga.: Hancock Publishing Company — 1888. 

20. Strickland, W. P., The Pioneer Bishop: or The Life and 
Times of Francis Asbury. New York: Carlton & Porter — 1858. 
21. Tyler, Samuel, Memoir of Roger Brooks Taney. Baltimore: 
John Murphy & Co. — 1872. 


3. Journals and Diartes. 


1. Asbury, The Rev. Francis, Journal (from August 7, 1771 to 
December 7, 1815 — in three volumes). New York: N. Bangs 
and T. Mason — 1821. 

2. Coke, Thomas, Journal (in three volumes). 

3. Eddy, T. M., Journal (Manuscript). Dr. Eddy was editor of 
the Northwestern Christian Advocate during the Civil War. 

4. Stevenson, The Rev. D., Journal (Manuscript). Two vol- 
umes. Stevenson, though a member of the southern Church, 
remained loyal to the Union during the Civil War. 

5. Welles, Gideon, Diary (three volumes). Boston and New 
York: Houghton Mifflin Company — 1911. 

6. Wesley, The Rev. John, Journal (edited by Nehemiah Cur- 
nock). New York: Eaton & Mains; Cincinnati: Jennings and 
Graham. 


4. Works and Writings. 


1. Calhoun, John C., Speeches of, delivered in the House of Rep- 
resentatives, and in the Senate of the United States (edited by 
Richard K. Cralle’), New York: D. Appleton and Company—1853 
2. Lincoln, Abraham, Complete Works of (edited by John G. 
Nicolay and John Hay — two volumes). New York: The Century 
Co. — 1902. 

3. Schurz, Carl, Speeches, Correspondence and Political Papers 
of (selected and edited by Frederick Bancroft) — 6 volumes. 
New York and London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons — 1913. 

4. Webster, Daniel, The Writings and Speeches of (18 volumes). 
Boston: Little Brown & Company; Chicago & St. Louis: E. Hold- 
away Publishing Company — 1903. 


VII. State Historica, REcorps. 


1. Kansas State Historical Society, Transactions of the, Volumes 
IX, X, XIII (1905—6, 1907—8, 1913—14). Topeka: State Printing 
Office. Paes ye | 


350 Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


VIII. Sermons anp HyMNAL. 


1. Sermons. 


1. Doggett, Rev. D. S., A Nation’s Ebenezer: A Discourse de- 
livered in Broad St. Methodist Church, Richmond Virginia, Thurs- 
day, September 18, 1862, The Day of Public Thanksgiving, 
appointed by the President of the Confederate States. Richmond: 
Enquirer Book and Job Press — 1862. 

2. Doggett, Rev. D. S., The War and Its Close: A Discourse, 
delivered in Centenary Church, Richmond, Va., Friday, April 8th, 
1864, on the occasion of the National Fast. Richmond: MacFar- 
lane & Ferguson (Published by the Soldiers’ Tract Association, 
M. E. Church, South) — 1864. 

3. Scarburgh, George P., and 15 others, An Address to the 
People of the County of Accomac (Collected in the “Virginia 
Sermon Pamphlets, Volume 2). The date is not given. The 
purpose was to win over to the Southern Methodist Church the 
people of Virginia who were in the Philadelphia conference. 


2. Hymn-Book. 


1. Soldiers Hymn-Book for Camp Worship. Soldiers Tract 
Association, M. E, Church, South — 1863 


B. SECONDARY SOURCES. 
1. Accounts DEALING Wi1TH SLAVERY. 


1. Encyclopedia, The New International, Volume V. (second 
edition) — Article on “Colonization Society.” New York: Dodd, 
Mead and Company — 1917. 

2. Harrison, W. P., The Gospel among the Slaves; a_ short 
account of the Missionary Operations among the African Slaves 
of the Southern States. Nashville: Publishing House of the 
M. E. Church, South — 1893. 

3. Macy, Jesse, The Anti-Slavery Crusade: a Chronicle of the 
Gathering Storm. New Haven: Yale University Press — 1919. 
4. Townsend, W. J.: Workman, H. B.; Eayrs, George, A New 
History of Methodism (in two volumes). London: Hodder and 
Stoughton — 1919. 

5. Wilson, Henry, Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America, 
(three volumes). Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin and 
Conipany — 1872. 


II. Genera HistoricaL ACCOUNTS. 


1. Bassett, John Spencer, A Short History of the United States, 
1492-1920. New York: The Macmillan Company — 1921. 

2. Chadwick, French Ensor, Causes of the Civil War, 1859-1861. 
(The American Nation: A History, Volume 19). New York: 
Harper & Brothers — 1906. 

3. Dodd, William E., Expansion and Conflict (The Riverside 
History of the United States). Boston, New York, Chicago: 


Bibliography 301 


Ratan Mifflin Company; Cambridge: The Riverside Press 
4. Hart, Albert Bushnell, Slavery and Abolition, 1831-1841 (The 
American Nation: A History, Volume 16.) New ‘York and Lon- 
don: Harper & Brothers — 1907. 

5. Hosmer, James Kendall, The Appeal to Arms, 1861-63 (The 
American Nation: A History, Volume 20). New York and Lon- 
don: Harper & Brothers — 1907. 

6. Hosmer, James Kendall, Outcome of the Civil War, 1863-1865 
(The American Nation: A History, Volume 21). New York and 
London: Harper and Brothers — 1907. 

7. Smith, Theodore Clarke, Parties and Slavery, 1850-59 (The 
American Nation: A History, Volume 18). New York and Lon- 
don: Harper and Brothers — 1906. 





INDEX 


Adams, John Quincy, 113 (foot- 
note 14) 

African Slave Trade, 279, 285 
(footnote 3) 

Andrew, James O., 13, 41, 119, 
130, 131 (footnote 39), 140 
130, 131 (footnote 39), 140, 
Bale $42 150, Siz 

Andrew Chapel, 163 

Arkansas Conference, 254, 255, 
256 

pishury Hrancie. Lo SSG) 1S, 
14, 16, 19, 20, 25, 26, (footnote 
38), 27, 28, 29, 30, 48; 143 

Atwater, H. C., 236, 251 

Baltimore Christian Advocate, 
228, 229 

Baltimore Conference, 71, 72, 73, 
1175419 161,172,°192;193, 194, 
204, 207, 222, 228, 229, 307, 308 

Bangs, Nathan, 59, 60, 62, 72, 80, 
94, 95, 96 

Barris, J. S., 84 

Bascom, H. B., 98 

Bedford, Colonel, 2 

Bewley, Anthony, 258, 259 

Bible and Slavery, The, 2, 4, 5, 
56 (footnote 85), 92 (footnote 
VAR Ed Hos) 

Birney, James G., 39, 58 

Blackman, Learner, 6, 21 

Black River Conference, 82, 205, 
206, 333 

Boston Olive Branch, 88 
Brown, John, 279, 280, 281, 282, 
285 (footnote 4) 

Calhoun, John C., 287 

Capers,William, 40, 41, 63, 67 
(footnote 27), 88, 93, 94, 119, 
120, 137, 140, 143 (footnote 
5), 168 (footnote 3) 

Cartwright, Peter, 6, 7, 10 (foot- 
note 17); 21, 22, 24, 26 (foot- 
note 54), 31, 56 (footnote 86), 


63, 67-8 (footnote 30), 98, 99, 


109, 115 (footnote 44), 151, 
153, 156-7 (footnote 31), 173, 
213, 290 

Channing, William Ellery, 103 

Chicago Times, 329, 330 

Christian Advocate and Journal, 
8, 24, 41, 42, 44,49 50, °53 
(footnote 31), 54, (footnote 
48), 79, 82, 109, 111, 150, 205, 
ALeeZ0y 290.291 327." 3300 Sal 

Christian Sentinel, 41 

Christmas Conference, 3 

Cincinnati, 33, 58, 163 

Cincinnati Anti-Slavery Society, 
60, 61 

Cincinnati Case, The, 180, 181, 
182, 183 

Cincinnati Conference, 206 

Clay, Henry, 288 

Coke, Thomas, 1, 2, 4, 14, 16, 18, 
27,29; 30 

Collins, J. A,. 121, 124 

Comfort, Silas, 97, 98 

Committee of Nine, 138 

Congregational Church, 86 

Corruption, 134 (footnote 67) 

Cryer, Hardy M., 22, 23 

Davis, Jefferson, 311, 313 

Delaware Conference, 221 

Dempster, John, 328 

Detroit Conference, 300, 323 

Doggett. D. S., 316 

Dougherty, George, 13 

Douglas, Stephen A., 272 

Douglas, Thomas L., 6 

Dred Scott Case, 277 

Durbin e252 

Early, John, 59, 63 

East Baltimore, 307 

East Genesee Conference, 
306, 333 

East Maine Conference, 223 

Edney, Levin, 6 

Election: (1860) 283, 284; 
(1864) 305 


276, 


303 


304 


Elliott, Charles, 151, 152, 156 
(footnote 18), 158, 159, 167-8 
(footnote 2), 182, 191, 208, 
246, 303 

Emancipation, 4, 5, 

Emancipation et ch gen) 
328, 329, 330 

Emancipator, The, 67 (footnote 
31), (footnote 12), 92 
(footnote 36) 

Emory, John, 47, 48, 49, 

nen beet ean Church, 59, 

9 

Erie puters ZO FE 7 ON) oo, 
84, 91 (footnote 23), 110, 195, 
196, 203, 204, 273, 306, 307, 4 8 
322, Bah 332 

Few resolution, 98, 108 

Finley, James B., 10 (footnote 
PD) 2s 120 

Fisk, Wilbur, 47, 48, 49, 79, 80, 
94, 137 


Fremont, John C., 322, 323 

Friends, 2,39 

Fugitive Slave Law, 264, 265 

Garrettson, Freeborn, 1, 18, 19 

Garrison, William Lloyd, 39, 42, 
45, 46, 48, 62, 64, 65, 71, 80, 91 
(footnote 25), 199, 244 259 
(footnote 10) 

Gatch, Philip, 1 


General Conference (1780) 17, 
28; (1784) 17; (1785) 28; 
(1792) 18; (1796) 4, 18: 
(1800) 5, 18; (1804) 18, 19; 
1808) 6, 19; (1812) 20, 21; 
CISION 223 OLB20)4 S29 + 
(1824) 28, 29; (1828) 23, 24; 
(1832) 40, 58; (1836) 59, 60, 
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67 (footnote 
wel ie (1840) 94, 95, 96, 97, 

(1844) 117-34, 137-9; 
(indey 143; (1848) 152, 153, 
165, 166, 177, 178; (1852) 204, 
205 ; (1854) 246, "247 « (1856) 
Zh 21e ela (1858) 247, 248, 
250 (1860) 
(footnote 32); 
333, 334, 339 (footnote 88) 


Genesee Conference, 72, 73, 83, 
93, 110, 276, 300, 305, 331 


Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


Georgia Conference, 71, 77 
(footnote 13), ve 

Greeley, Horace, 328 

ese Jacob, 10 (footnote 17), 
Zz, 


Halcyon Church, 92 (footnote 
42 


Harding, F. A., 111, 119, 127 

Harper, John, 13 

Harper’s Ferry, 279, 280 

Haven, E. O., 334 

Haven, Gilbert, 153, 282 

Hedding, Elijah, 40, 47, 48, 49, 
69, 70, 72, 73, 75, 79, 80, 81, 89, 
97, 103, 121, 122, 124, 176 

Holston Conference, 44 

Illinois Maan ehattt 173, 194, 208, 

DWH 

Inaugural of Lincoln, 286 (foot- 
note 35) 

Jackson, Andrew 

hace Edmund Sy ‘08, oli veealy 
2 


Kansas-Nebraska Bill, 273, 274 

Kelly, Charles H., 256 

Kentucky Conference (North). 
41, 44, 71, 93, 102, 150, 153. 
221, 220,295 

Kentucky Conference (South), 
178, 179, 249, 250, 316, 317 

Lee, Luther, 61, 62, 79, 82, 83, 
86, 87, 106 107, 108 


Lincoln-Douglas Debates, 285 
(footnote 1) 
Long, J. D., 234, 235, 238 


Longstreet, A. B., 137 

Louisville Convention, 140, 141 

Lovejoy, Elijah P. 79, 90 
(footnote 4) 

Lundy, Benjamin, 39 

Maine Conference, 74, 75, 81, 
149, 203, 205, 223, 266, 273, 
276,274; Bde 

Matlack, Lucius, 71, 210 

Maysville Case, 163, 164 170 
(footnote 24) 

Methodist, The, 229, 332 

Methodist Anti-slavery 
tions, 110 

Methodist Magazine, 8 

Methodist Magazine and Quar- 
terly Review, 45 


Conven- 


Index 


Michigan Conference, 85, 214, 
276 

Minnesota Conference, 323, 328 

Missionary work among the 
slaves, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34 (foot- 
note 10), 52 (footnote 14) 

Mississippi Conference, 148 

Missouri Conference (North), 
164, 253, 254 

M’Kendree, William, 6, 14, 15, 
19, 20, 21 

Morris, Thomas A., 63, 83, 125, 
140, 141, 160, 165, 252, 253, 259, 
300 

Nashville Christian Advocate, 
EOL 23a) 201; 244,256; ‘263, 
267, 208,), 275, 280;. 312, 314, 
318 (footnote 12) 

National Colonization Society 
OTA MENCA. (OR 52.) OG, a0 
(footnote 27), 41, 85, 102, 108, 
208 

New Chapter, The, 226, 227, 229, 
230, 235 

New England Christian Advo- 
cate, 46, 104 

New England Conference, 47, 69, 
70, 80, 93, 94, 102, 110, 120, 
149, 156 (footnote 29), 195, 
Sar 210, 219, 220, 223, 224, 279, 


New Hampshire Conference, 48, 
69, 70, 75, 81, 82, 94, 103, 194, 
195, 204, 241 (footnote 13), 
277, 333, 338 (footnote 78) 

New Jersey Conference, 332 

New Orleans Christian Advo- 
gate, 281) 283,’ 312,313 

New York Case, The, 179, 180, 
181, 182 

New York Conference, 43, 49, 
69, 84, 85, 110, 172, 208, 220, 
2o5 

New York East Conference, 220, 
2251220) 324 

Northern Christian 
322 

Northern Independent, The, 236, 
237, 239, 240, 241, 251 

North Indiana Conference, 172, 
173, 206 


Advocate, 


395 


North Ohio Conference, 206, 207 

Northwest Indiana Conference, 
206 

Northwestern Christian. Advo- 
cate, 209, 210, 235, 280, 281, 
299.6300, 321+ 322). 323," 324, 
25.4020, doa; G0L 

Ohio Conierence, 7, 23, 41, 43, 
49, 93, 149, 161, 162, 163, 207, 
SACO Ve 

Olin, Stephen, 119, 120 

Oneida Conference, 73, 83, 206, 
a0 

“Onesimus”, 42 

Parker, Daniel, 53 (footnote 37) 

Parker, Theodore, 209, 217 
(footnote 51), 267; 270-71 
(footnote 29) 

Patton, William, 328, 329, 330 

Peck, George, 73, 74, 76, 82, 83, 
126, 154 

Peoria Conference, 220 

Philadelphia Conference, 71, 103, 
161, 173, 193, 204, 207, 208, 237, 
238, 307 

Phillips, Wendell, 87 

Pierce, George, 123, 124 

Pierce, .Lovick, 140, 153, 156 
(footnote 27), 252, 276, 277 

eeeth Christian Advocate, 
121 

Pittsburgh Conference, 102, 103, 
113 (footnote 4), 277 

Plan of Pacification, 90 (foot- 
note 7) 

Plan of Separation, 138, 139, 140, 
143-5 (footnote 7), 145-6 
(footnote 14), 154, 158, 159, 
160, 161 

Porter, James, 126, 127 

Preston, Benjamin, 84 

Prindle, Cyrus, 82 

Providence Conference, 103, 194, 
273, 294 (footnote 28) 

Rankin, John, 39 

Richmond Christian Advocate, 
116 (footnote 68), 149, 154, 
LSU /4NOCS/,. eae eor ale; 
273, 279, 280, 291, 292, 315 

Ridgeway, Henry B., 334 

Robertson, Mark, 256, 257 


306 


Rock River Conference, 206, 276, 
te (footnote 29), 305, 324, 
32 

Roszel, Stephen G., 60, 63, 64 

Rules on Slavery, 3, 4, 5, 19, 64, 
93, 94.118): 203) 223" 224225, 
226, 

St. Louis Christian Advocate, 
268, 313, 314, 318-19 (foot- 
note 19) 

Scott, Orange, 46, 47, 59, 61, 62, 
63; 04, 66, 73) (75h 70, 76,79, 
80, 87; 94, 95" 96, 106, . 117; 
118 

Simpson, Matthew, 231, 263, 264, 
265, 266, 290, 301, 302, 304, 
305 

Slavery in the Northern Metho- 
dist Church, 192,-8, 234-41 

Slavery in the Southern Metho- 
dist Church, 188-91, 243-50 

Smith, William, 58, 59, 63, 69, 96, 
97, 245 

Social Interpretation of the 
Gospel, The, 15, 16 

Soule, Joshua, 59, 120, 140, 141, 
142. S150 6251153. be Sw) tee 
(footnotes 6-7) 

South Carolina Conference, 6, 
44, 50, 51, 56 (footnote 84), 
FRING) os WM A bs 

Southeastern Indiana Conference 
wev,iz2t 

Southern Christian Advocate, 
149, 202 (footnote 74), 288, 
289, 312 

Southern Illinois Conference, 
208, 224, 228, 299, 333 

Southwestern Christian Advo- 
cate, 288 

Sprague, Seth, 106 

Stanton-Ames Order, 304, 305 

Stevenson, D., 249, 250 

Storrs, George, 70 

Stowe, Harriett Beecher, 272 

Sumner, Charles, 275, 276 

Sunday School Journal, 209 

Sunderland, Le Roy, 50, 69, 75, 
79, 88, 97, 102 


Episcopal Methodism and Slavery 


Taney, Roger B., 10 (footnote 
17), 184 

Tennessee Conference, 6, 7, 8, 
19, 20, 21, 22, 41, 44 

Texas Christian Advocate, 256, 
259, 274, 313 

Thirteenth Amendment, 332, 335 

Trimble, J. M., 123 

Troy, 82, 172 

Wen: ‘Wesleyan, The, 234, 289, 
290 

Upper Iowa Conference, 230, 328 

Utica Wesleyan Methodist, 104, 
105, 114 (footnote 16) 

Vermont Conference, 195, 203, 
205, 234, 266 

Vine St. Church, 163 

Virginia Conference, 15, 17, 23 > 

Virginia Sentinel, 45, 46, 65, 66 

Wesley, John, 1 

Wesleyan Methodist Connection 
of America, 91 (footnote 23), 
106, 107, 109 

Western Christian Advocate, 44, 
45, 105, 114 (footnote 20), 150, 
174, 198, 204, 275, 280, 283, 
Fo a 

Western Conference, 5, 6 

Western Virginia Conference, 
204.205: 221, 222 oe coe 
(footnote 27) 

Westmoreland District Case, 98 

West Wisconsin Conference, 300, 
328 

Whitefield, George, 14 

Wiley, W. H., 257, 258 

Wisconsin Conference, 206, 207, 
VANS ey 8 

Wyandott Indians, 166, 171 
(footnote 43) 

Zion’s Herald, 9, 31, 33, 43, 43, 
47, 49, 74, 82, 104, 109, 236, 
263, 281, 282, 285 (footnote 
18), 289 

“Zion’s Herald Extra”, 81 

Zion’s Watchman, 49, 65, 69, 85, 
87, 91 (footnote 27 and 34 ), 
104, 105, 106 





we 





Brodart Co. Cat. #55 137 001 Printed in USA 





“s 


PaC NY aes 


eae” 4: 





viii 





